Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALEXANDRA PALACE (RECONSTRUCTION).

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: (by Private Notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state whether the decision of the Home Development Committee not to recommend for grant the scheme for the employment of 600 men for two years in the reconstruction of Alexandra Palace has been endorsed by the Government; whether he is aware that the work has already commenced and
will he receive a deputation of the Trustees to further discuss the position?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I have been asked to reply to this question. Under the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, I have no power to make a grant unless the Unemployment Grants Committee so recommend. I am informed that the Committee have before them a letter from Alexandra Park Trustees asking for reconsideration, and meanwhile there is no action that I can take.

NATIONAL ECONOMY BILL,

"to authorise the making of Orders in Council for the purpose of effecting economies in expenditure falling to be defrayed out of public moneys and improvements in the arrangements for meeting such expenditure," presented by the Prime Minister; supported by Mr. Stanley Baldwin and Secretary Sir Herbert Samuel; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Stanley Baldwin): I beg to move,
That during the remainder of the Session:

(1) No Motions shall be made for leave to bring in Bills;
(2) At the conclusion of Government Business, or of Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any Order, Rule, or Regulation to be laid before the House of Commons, which shall be taken immediately after Government Business, Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question, That this House do now adjourn, and, if that Question shall not have been agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put, not later than one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, if that Business has been concluded before 10.30 p.m., but, if that business has not been so concluded, not later than 11.30 p.m;
(3) If the day be a Friday the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday."
After all the permutations of the last weeks it is not altogether easy for the House to realise the position in which it finds itself. There is a feeling among us that we are entering upon a new Session, whereas, as a matter of fact, we are at the end of a Session already not far from 12 months old. It. will be within the memory of every Member of the House, and particularly of the occupants of the Front Bench opposite, that in the latter part of a Session, that is to say, in the autumn if it be the prolongation of a Session begun at an earlier date, and not the beginning of a new Session, the adoption of such a Motion as that I am moving—or a Motion embodying the major part of what I am moving—has been the universal practice of the House for some years past. Motions with regard to private Members' time have been moved regularly from the Government Bench. It used to be done to clear up a certain ambiguity with regard to part of that time which was made clear by an alteration of the Standing Orders made within the last three or four years. I want to point out, with regard to the second and third paragraphs of this Motion, on which I will say a word first, that the private Member has no grievance, in that he has
already had during the Session the full allotment of time awarded to him under Standing Orders. What this Motion does is to say that if Government business comes to an end at a comparatively early period of the day, then the House shall be adjourned within an hour of that time, leaving an hour for such discussion as Members may desire, rather than having, what to the majority of the House has always been rather of an infliction, the possibility of the House running on for several hours until the normal time comes for adjourning. Should the business of the House finish at the usual time of 11 o'clock, then the ultimate hour for the adjournment is confirmed, according to our usual practice, at half-past 11.
I may just remind the House, in case they are looking for precedents for taking up private Members' time as dealt with under the first part of the Motion, which deals with the introduction of Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule, that the last time that Parliament met for one specific purpose, and one only, was to deal with the crisis on the Irish question in 1922. At that time the whole of the private Members time and such privileges as existed were taken away for Government business. At this period of the Session Parliament, having been convened for one purpose primarily, and one purpose only, we have thought fit to follow that precedent in order that the Government may enjoy all the time there is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Enjoy!"]—I hope so—that they may get through all their business with the utmost despatch—which I am sure, whether we say it or not, is the desire of the whole House, for certain obvious reasons. I may add, with special reference to the third paragraph, because this may not be familiar to every Member, that when the Committee of Supply and the Committee of Ways and Means are open, Standing Order 24 provides that the House at its rising on Fridays stands adjourned until the following Monday but during the period when these Committees are not open a resolution of the House is required to postpone the sitting of the House from Friday to Monday. I think it is for the general convenience of the House that that should be embodied in the Motion which I move.
Paragraph (1) of the Motion is the only one, I think, on which a private Member may reasonably feel that he is aggrieved.
It provides that no Motion shall be made for leave to bring in a Bill. That refers to Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. It does not prevent a private Member presenting a Bill in the ordinary way and having it printed, nor does it deprive him of the power to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, the one dealing with questions of urgent public importance, nor, of course, does it interfere in any way with whatever a private Member may think fit to say upon the ordinary occasions of adjournment. Private Members have always valued the privilege of bringing in a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, not that such Bills ever get very much farther, but they give the Member a very good advertisement in his constituency—and there are times when we all of us feel the need of that. It also enables a Member, particularly if he be supporting a subject not of general popularity, to get it free and public circulation. All that is to the good, and the opportunities for it have existed through the year; and it is only in the exceptional circumstances which have called the House to meet at this time that we have thought it right to follow the precedent set in not dissimilar circumstances in 1922, and to take for these few weeks that privilege from the private Member. I think that with these few words of explanation, hon. Members are possessed of the simple facts with regard to this Motion, and it is for them to discuss it and come to a conclusion upon it.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) has moved this Motion very briefly upon the assumption that it, involves merely questions of procedure and the taking of the time of private Members and nothing more. This question cannot be disposed of so quickly as that, and it has never been so disposed of when previous Governments have put a similar Motion before the House. The right hon. Gentleman made a remark at the beginning of his explanation which did not appear to me to be quite accurate when he said that private Members had already had their allotment of time, and therefore they had no grievance under this Motion. It is true that private Members have had their fair allotment of time so far as private Members' days and evenings for Motions are concerned, but the Motion does not deal
with that question at all. In the ordinary way the private Member was left with a certain amount of time for the remainder of this Session, and now the Motion takes away all the time which he had left. I gather that this Motion prevents the private Member from introducing Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. The right hon. Gentleman says that it does not hamper the private Member in merely presenting Bills for their First Reading and having them read out by the Clerk at the Table, but even there I think the Motion comes in. It has been put down only this morning, but I gather that the private Member will not have the right to have his Bill read out for the Second Reading at all. Last Session a private Member belonging to the Labour party succeeded in getting an important Bill carried with the consent of the House.
It frequently happens that the House rises fairly early after the Government business is concluded about seven or eight o'clock. In those circumstances, the private Member, on the Motion for the Adjournment, has several hours in which to discuss any question which he wishes to bring forward. That right is taken away by this Motion. I have no objection to the third paragraph with regard to Fridays, which is obviously merely technical. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are identical with the Resolutions which were put before this House in 1925, 1926, and 1927, and in each of 'those years they were resisted by the Labour party.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Not this year.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: They were resisted, and the opening speech was made by the Leader of the Labour party, whose leadership I am very pleased to follow. On these Motions to take away the time of private Members, it has been the habit of Government spokesmen to make a statement regarding the business which the Government propose to lay before the House and then to allow the house to decide whether it is willing to allow time for that business to be carried through. The right hon. Gentleman has made no such statement. There are certain very important questions which one can raise now and to which I should like to have a reply. The right hon. Gentleman said this Motion was proposed because the Government wished to get through the business rapidly for obvious reasons. I
remember the last time that the right hon. Gentleman spoke from that Box he was the Leader of the Conservative party, and he made a reference to this point.

Mr. E. BROWN: He is not a prisoner, like Henderson.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying, on that occasion, that he wished the House to get through the business rapidly in order that we might have a general election, and I should like to have some information about that. Last night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) advocated and urged an early general election and that statement met with the approval of many hon. Members sitting around the right hon. Gentleman. Why did the right hon. Gentleman urge that? He said he did so simply because the longer this Government lived the more discredited and unpopular they would become—

Viscountess ASTOR: He is not in it.

An HON. MEMBER: There are no women in it.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping said that the longer this Government lived the more unpopular they would become, and therefore he thought it was essential to have a general election before the democracy had been able fully to realise all the implications and consequences of the policy which the Government are adopting. [Interruption.]

Mr. CHURCHILL: I need hardly say that the House is quite capable of judging what a complete misrepresentation that is.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I will give the right hon. Gentleman's words:
A vast unorganised electorate will have new discontents and new disappointments, and they will assign to the Conservative party, which, after all, is the main and dominant force in this Government, an increasing measure of the weight and burden of affairs. In six months' time it will not be the Socialist Government that will be in the dock, but the Government of the day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th September, 1931; col. 45, Vol. 256.]
But I noticed that, although the right hon. Gentleman said this about the electorate in one part of his speech, that
did not deter him from saying, in his peroration, that he was willing—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see what this has to do with the Motion.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to point out that, on the last occasion when a similar Motion was discussed, a General Election was a possibility, and the question of the motives for a General Election was, I assure you, Sir, very fully debated on that occasion. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman, but I think I should be in order and within precedent if I just discussed the question as to whether the shortening of the time allowed for Debate in this House was or was not preparatory to a General Election.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman can show reasons why the time of the House should not be taken up, he will be entirely in order, but I do not see what this has to do with that question.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I will explain. I wish that the time of the House should not be fully occupied by the Government in order that private Members might themselves have opportunities of putting before the country through this House their views upon this Government, and that, I think, would be in order. The view which I think many private Members wish to express is that one of the reasons why it is essential to have an early General Election is that this is a Coalition Government, or, if you wish it, a Conservative Government carrying a few Liberals and Labour Members in its train. But there is one thing that is certain, if an election is delayed, and if this Government lasts any length of time. Coalition Governments always begin amid the general approval of the Press, and in a few months, if they are allowed to last, they end in universal disgust. [Interruption.]

Mr. E. BROWN: Like Socialism.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Coalition Governments are like the Marriage Service of the Church of England. It begins, I have noticed, with the word "Beloved," and ends with the word "amazement." May I go on to another reason why I think it is inadvisable that private Members should be robbed of their time? I see sitting there the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). I cannot believe
that this Debate can proceed without his taking part in it, and I am sure that, when he does take part in it, he will speak for private Members, and that he will speak for the private Members of the Liberal party—those who are not in the Government. I think it is very important, not only that the Labour Members of the House should have full time to develop their views, but it is most essential, in order that the country should understand the situation, that Liberal Members should have the opportunity of explaining where they stand. [Interruption.] The reason why I think it is essential that the Liberal private Members should take part in these Debates is this: I noticed yesterday that speaker after speaker assailed the late Labour Government on account of its expenditure, but the simple fact is that one of the embarrassments of the late Labour Government was that, whatever expenditure they proposed, they were always hounded on to further expenditure by the Liberal party. Every Department suffered from this nuisance. If I may give my own experience at the Post Office, I was continually being badgered to spend another£15,000,000 a year on telephone development—

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: May I ask if this is in order?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am sure that the how and gallant Member has not followed previous Debates on these Motions for taking private Members' time, the discussions on which have always ranged over a very wide area, and have included exactly the type of subject that I am discussing, especially when a general election was in sight. [Interruption.] I will only say that, if I had followed their advice, I should have been committed to wanton and wasteful and profligate expenditure, and that, to the deficit on the Unemployment Insurance Fund, there would have been added a deficit, on telephone account. I need only go back a few months. What was laid before us by the Liberal party was expenditure for every Government Department, and, in order to meet it, there was to be a vast national loan of £250,000,000.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go into that matter on this Motion. It only deals with the question of taking private Members' time.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: May I come to this. It is usual to ask on these occasions what the Government business is going to be. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley has, in fact, omitted what has been a very normal feature of a speech at this time of the Session taking away private Member's time. It has been customary to make some general statement as to what were the main items of Government business and what the course of it was to be. I do not wish to ask about the whole of it, but I think I am in order in asking about one portion of it which was brought to my mind by certain observations made yesterday by the Prime Minister. He said the Government would not resign until the currency was on a stable foundation, and he went on to indicate that that stability would not be secured merely by balancing the Budget. He used phrases about the banking system which indicated that he, at any rate, had views and thoughts and possibilities in his mind upon that sphere of action which have certainly not been expressed by any of his Conservative colleagues. I should like to ask whether the Government, if they take private Members' time, have any intention of dealing with this aspect of the subject? I would not go into any discussion of financial conspiracies and so on. That is not part of my argument. The Prime Minister indicated that he realised that, undoubtedly, one of the causes of the crisis that has come upon the country is that the banking system has developed certain excesses and extravagancies which have made it so delicate that, quite apart from anything in this country, circumstances arising in Germany can lead us to a crisis such as confronted us three weeks ago. Unless the Prime Minister deals with that, he does not put the currency of the country on a stable foundation, because of these possibilities in the banking system.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask the Prime Minister what the business is going to he, but he really cannot go into the merits of various Bills.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I would, then, ask the Government whether they intend
to deal with this particular cause of the crisis through which we have passed. My impression, from what has been stated up to the present, is that they have no such intention at all. That being so, I think the country will be grateful that there is in existence a party which will give its attention to these things and which will be an alternative to a Government mainly dominated by the Conservative party.

Mr. E. BROWN: Those who have followed Debates on the procedure of the House and have taken the trouble to follow the evidence given before the Select Committee on Procedure will not be surprised that the Chief Whip of the Labour party did not speak in favour of this Motion or choose one of his late Cabinet Ministers, because it is well known that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is a friend of the private Member. He spent a lot of time in his own party and also helped private Members in other parties with his great knowledge of the procedure of the House, but, if he will read the evidence given before the Committee, he will find that his Whip, and the Prime Minister also, do not share his views about private Members' time. The Prime Minister is logical. He is only carrying out his evidence. But the hon. Gentleman is not. The Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman in their evidence regard the House as a legislative sausage machine to turn out the decrees of the Government. I am, therefore, not very surprised that the Chief Whip of the late Government himself did not speak to this Motion or choose one of his ex-Cabinet Ministers who were so very keen to dragoon private Members on the Finance Bill of 1930. There are private Members in the House who do not need right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench to express their views. They are quite capable of expressing them for themselves.
The right hon. Gentleman, of course, is an illustration of a recent article by the late President of the Board of Trade, a cynical and an artless article, in which he points out that the trained thinkers and economists in the party are a very small minority and that the thing that moves the party is simply mass motives. The right hon. Gentleman makes a high-
brow speech here and says lie does not believe in conspiracies. The highbrow speech will have very little sale, but the highly-coloured shocker about a conspiracy will have a very wide and popular sale indeed. This Motion is on the Table of the House for one reason. The House is not called normally. It is called for one purpose only. It is not here normally, because the situation is abnormal for two reasons. A crisis having arisen, one body of right hon. Gentlemen faced the crisis and the other body ran away. Speaking as a private Member, I say that there are many private Members in the House who realise the emergency, many who are here as Members, not as delegates, to speak their own minds and not the minds of some little caucus in a back room outside. They understand that this is an emergency and, therefore, their duty is a very simple one, to sit tight, to keep quiet, and to vote straight.

Mr. STEPHEN: We have just heard a very interesting statement from the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) on the importance of being in earnest. I do not intend to follow him, but I want to get, if possible, some information from the Government with regard to this Motion, if it is carried. I notice that the second paragraph says:
That during the remainder of the Session:
Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any Order, Rule, or Regulation to be laid before the House of Commons, which shall be taken immediately after Government business,
and so on.
I wish to ask whether, if one of those regulations has been laid and a private Member wishes to put down a Prayer that the regulation shall not be carried into effect, the private Member will be allowed to move his Prayer.

Mr. S. BALDWIN indicated assent.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am very glad to get that assurance from the Lord President of the Council, because it is a matter of very great importance. We have met here under what has been described as a great emergency, and during the Debate yesterday I felt that it would only have been fair to the Members of the House if one of the representatives of the Government had taken the oppor-
tunity of giving the House some indication of the period of time during which we are likely to be engaged in connection with the emergency measures. I wish to ask the former Leader of the Conservative party—I forget his title in this Government—the Lord President of the Council—

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: The Leader of the Conservative party.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would say to the, hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) that I was trying to be accurate, and, whether he likes it or not, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. R. MacDonald) is the Leader of the Conservative party. It may make the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich uneasy, but it leaves us very happy on this side of the House. [Interruption.] I am very happy. I wish to ask the Lord President of the Council this question. Is it not possible for the Government to give some indication of the time to be taken for the Second Reading of the Economy Bill and of the number of days they are contemplating for the Committee stage of the Bill? I should also like similar information with regard to the supplementary Budget. T should like them, if they are able, to give us some idea of what is in the mind of the Government as to the time to be taken in regard to those two Measures. This is also a very suitable occasion upon which the representative of the Government could tell us what is intended with regard to other legislation which is contemplated besides those two Measures. What of the other Bills which have been carried through in this Session of Parliament? Is it not possible for the Government to give us some idea with regard to those Measures?
The Government are proposing to take away private Members' time. During this Session I introduced a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule in order to secure a reduction of rents of houses in the country, and the Bill has had a Second Reading and is at the Committee stage. I should like the Lord President of the Council to tell me whether there is any possibility, seeing that this Motion is going to take private Members' time, of the Government giving facilities for the remaining; stages of that Bill? The Prime Minister has been very insistent
that the unemployed in this country should not worry so very much about a 10 per cent. reduction, because there has been a 11½ per cent. reduction in the cost of commodities. I am taking advantage of the occasion of this Motion to point out that the people who draw rents for those houses are also enjoying the advantage of the lower price of commodities. If there is to be equality of sacrifice in connection with the present emergency, I hope that I shall be able to get facilities from the Government for the passage of this Measure, which will call for some sacrifice from the property owners with regard to rents. If the Government give those facilities, and there is a corresponding reduction in rents, it will make the cut which the unemployed are being called upon to suffer less onerous. I hope the Lord President of the Council will give us an assurance that there will be a cut in rents so that the sacrifice is not placed wholly upon the shoulders of the unemployed and the people in receipt of the poor wages which are current at the present time.
The questions which I have put to the Lord President of the Council, Members on all sides of the House will agree, are very reasonable. I think that Members on all sides are anxious to know as soon as possible what is in the mind of the Government with regard to the period of time we are going to be engaged upon legislation during the remainder of this Session. I do not suggest that we should be given a definite statement of the exact number of days on the Committee stage and all the rest of it, but surely we should be given some general indication of what the Government have in mind as to the time. I am surprised that this information has not been given, and I hope that the House will now be given the information. If the Government are going to give a reasonable time for the Economy Bill and for the supplementary Budget—[An HON. MEMBER: "Do not repeat yourself."] If the hon. Member who interrupted will listen, he will find that I am not repeating myself. There is a Standing Order of the House with regard to repetition, and there is also Mr. Speaker, who knows the Rules better than the silly interrupter. If a reasonable amount of time is to be given with regard to the discussion of those other matters, there may
be a valid case for taking private Members' time, but if the Government are not going to give a reasonable amount of time for the discussion of those Measures, naturally, private Members will feel aggrieved at losing the few opportunities that they enjoy in this House. I am rather surprised that the Government have thought it necessary to take the few minutes occupied by private Members in introducing Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. It is such a comparatively short period of time that I am a little surprised that the Government have thought it worth while to try and steal it from the private Members. A Government which will be known in history as the starvation Government could not be expected to treat the private Members in this House with any consideration. I hope that we shall get information from the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. O'CONNOR: When the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) was speaking, I thought at first that perhaps he was succumbing to the natural temptation to work off a speech which he would have liked to deliver yesterday, but afterwards I came to the conclusion that perhaps he was speaking the mind of the Opposition when he was endeavouring to prevent the business for which this Parliament has been called together being carried out with the celerity which we on this side wish to see. The only meaning of the opposition raised by the right hon. Gentleman can be that he wishes to see the present Session and the life of this Parliament prolonged. In my opinion, that is a thing that we on this side of the House and the House as a whole do not wish to see. If there is one thing that has emerged both from the atmosphere of the House yesterday and from the nature and temper of the Opposition, it is the extreme impermanence of the Parliament which is assembled at the present time. It has no stability. The present Government is a breakdown gang.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is inviting discussion far beyond the range of the Motion before the House.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I have no desire to enlarge the discussion beyond the limits which you think proper, Mr. Speaker,
but, in my submission, I am justified in saying that this Government exists for the purpose of clearing up the mess that has been left to it by the last Government. It has been called into being for that purpose and that purpose only and so soon as it has devised the emergency Measures dealing with the acute crisis its function is ceasing and it ought to make way for another government. [Interruption.] I do not believe that we do any service to the country. [Interruption.] History will tell who has done the greatest disservice. I do not believe that one does any service to the country by maintaining the pretence that this Government can deal with the fundamentals of the situation. [HON. MEMBRES: "Hear, hear!'] I am glad to hear that there is widespread agreement with that sentiment. The fundamentals of the situation are our trade and industrial conditions.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is another speech that ought to have been delivered yesterday.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I will try to resist that very natural tendency, but may I insist that I am perfectly in order in saying that the House as a whole ought to assent to any form of precedure which will shorten the present Session and shorten the present Parliament? The House ought not to labour under the delusion that by sitting in Session when it has been called together for one specific purposes, it is going to do anything more than postpone the crisis which has to be faced some time or other, but not by this Government. For those reasons, any Measure which limits the duration of the present Session ought to command the assent of the House of Commons. The main duty of this Government is bound to be an administrative duty. It has to make democracy safe for the General Election.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member must not widen the scope of the Debate. I shall have to call him to order very seriously if he does.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I trust that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, who by their profuse cheering seem to agree with my sentiments, including the last one that I expressed, will be at least logical in supporting the Government in this Motion, by which the Gov-
ernment are endeavouring to curtail this Session and curtail the life of this Parliament. Any other course that they may take, such opposing the present Motion, must be construed as showing their desire to postpone the issue on which we are going to meet them at the polls.

Mr. MATHERS: I do not wish to follow the last hon. and learned Member in his argument, but I would endorse the appeal that has been made by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) for facilities for Bills which have already gone a considerable distance towards the Statute Book. There are several Bills on the Order Paper, and if some of those Bills were allowed to go to Committees I am certain that they would not take up any considerable amount of time and that they would come back to the House in such a form that they would require little or no time for the Report stage and Third Reading, thereby allowing them to pass into law speedily. There is, for example, the Bill which stands last on the Order Paper for to-day, sponsored by myself, which I am certain could be considered in Committee and so moulded into shape that it would come before the House I believe as an agreed Measure. It is, of course, a private Member's Bill, hut I believe that it could come back from Committee in a form which would win for it general approval, and it would take up very little time in the House. I refer to the Wild Birds Protection (Scotland) Bill.
It is perhaps natural that I should make a plea for a Bill which may be said to be my own child, but I want to raise another question of more general importance, and to make a very specific inquiry of the Lord President of the Council with regard to it. For many weary days I sat and listened to the now silent Members of the Conservative party exercising all their ingenuity to prevent the Consumers' Council Bill getting through the Committee stage. That Bill got through Committee, although it was somewhat mutilated by having one Clause struck out entirely. There is, I believe, a great need in the present circumstances for this Bill to be brought before the House, amended in essential particulars, with the reinsertion of the Clause which was struck out, and passed into law. This new Government, we are told, has been
brought into being in order that there might be a tightening of belts. I want to put forward the consideration that if our people, if our housewives, are to have less money with which to run the family exchequer—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see what this has to do with the Motion now before the House.

Mr. MATHERS: My point is, that if the Government propose to take private Members' time, I want to know the facilities which will be given to legislation other than that already foreshadowed by the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion deals chiefly with private Members' time.

Mr. MATHERS: I am asking how the Government are going to use the time they are demanding from private Members, what actually will come within the scope of their activities during this part of the Session, and, in view of the fact that the Government are setting out on a so-called economy campaign, it is desirable that the Consumers' Council Bill should be passed into law so that the people who are to he brought down to lower wages and lower salaries, who are suffering all the cuts, may have the assurance that they are being protected against profiteering. That is a consideration which should be brought forward at this time, and I desire to ask the Lord President of the Council what the Government propose to do in regard to the general question of private Members' Bills and these two Measures in particular.

Mr. COCKS: In a time of crisis like this I am profoundly shocked that the Lord President of the Council should bring forward a Motion of this description. We have been told that we are passing through one of the greatest economic crises which this country has ever seen, it is a crisis which has destroyed a Labour Government on which so many hopes were fixed, and has given us again one of those Coalitions which England does not like. We were told yesterday that just as in 1914, when, as the result of a shot in the Balkans, nation after nation was drawn into the Great War so, because of the failure of banks in Vienna, various nations—

Mr. SPEAKER: I can see that the hon. Member agrees that what he is now saying has not anything to do with the Resolution.

Mr. COCKS: My point is this. I will not elaborate it. We are all agreed that we are in a great crisis, but although the world survived the shock of 12,000,000 people being killed—

Mr. SPEAKER: Really this has nothing to do with the Motion before the House.

Mr. COCKS: The point I am trying to make is not concerned with that part of the Motion to take away private Members' time. That does not shock me in the least. The point which shocks me is that in a crisis like this we are proposing to rise on Friday and not to sit again until Monday. Personally, I am not shocked that private Members' time should be taken away, I think it is usually useless, but here is a crisis which is going on and getting deeper day by day. We are told by people who know something about our financial position that it is a crisis which is deepening steadily. Owing to the operation of the moneylenders and bankers and the deflation which has been going on for the last 10 years, the burden of debt on the nations has been increasing every day, industry is being strangled, and more and more people thrown out of work.
That is the crisis. It is a grave crisis in our history, and if business men can go to their offices on Saturday and work even on Sundays in some cases, then this House, to whom the workers are looking for a lead, should be able to do the same. The men who are going to be deprived of their unemployment benefit and wages are looking to us to earn our salaries and give a lead in a crisis like this. Why should the Government insist on a long week-end in a time of crisis? I have looked at the names of the members of this Government. It is an aristocratic Government. It contains five marquesses; only one is a Member of this House, and he is the best of the bunch. I am sure that he is willing to sit here on Saturdays and Sundays rather than go hunting and shooting. I think the House would be well occupied on Saturdays and Sundays in dealing with the crisis which is before us. For the first time we have a Government which does not represent the people at all.
We have merely the nominees of the moneylenders, the servants of Shylock. We have a Government which has surrendered to the gangsters of Wall Street. Never since Charles II's time—

Mr. SPEAKER: This has certainly nothing to do with the Motion.

Mr. COCKS: I will not weary your patience, Mr. Speaker, any longer. My point is, that if we had a Government with British characteristics they would not mind working during the week-end, but because it is a, Government of foreign nominees they propose to rise during the week-end and allow the bankers to work their wicked will.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONS: I wish to say a few words on behalf of the ex-Service men who are very naturally concerned in two private Members' Bills which appear on the Order Paper to-day. I would like an assurance from the Lord President of the Council about the Employment of Disabled Ex-Service Men Bill, and the War Pensions (Amendment) Bill which is to abolish the seven years' limit. I may say that the second Bill is a Bill which is agreed to by members of all political parties, and as we have now what claims to be a National Government, surely it is a fine opportunity for that National Government to give facilities for the passing into law of a Bill about which, when any particular party has been in office, difficulties have always arisen to prevent its passage to the Statute Book. Now that we have what claims to be a National Government, surely it is not too much, on behalf of men who made a sacrifice from 1914 to 1918, to ask that they should be rewarded by the passage into law of this Bill. It would, I am sure, give some colour to the sincerity of a Government which claims to believe in equality of sacrifice, if they equalled up the sacrifice made in the War, and one of the ways to equal up that sacrifice is to give justice to ex-Service men. I represent the vast number of ex-Service men of Birmingham and the division I represent. They are all very anxious that they and their colleagues, who feel that they have suffered an injustice in the matter of pensions, should be given an opportunity of having those pensions reconsidered without difficulties being placed in the way. May I appeal, there-
fore, to the Lord President of the Council to give us some assurance that this Bill will receive the consideration of the new Government, and will be starred as a Government Measure and placed on the Statute Book before this Parliament comes to an end?

Sir OSWALD MOSLEY: The hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. Simmons) has urged a course that he has often urged with great eloquence, and there would be some force in his observations if, as I understand, the Bill in question had not been blocked for two years by the Labour Chief Whip when the Labour Government, were, in office, and had the opportunity, when no crisis existed, to pass it into law, and when the Labour Chief Whip blocked the Measure in a period of comparative calm.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: May I inform the House that the statement now made by the hon. Member is not true?

Sir O. MOSLEY: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will deny that that Measure has been blocked from his bench.

Mr. KENNEDY: I do not need to deny it. The Bill was blocked, but not by me.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Sir O. MOSLEY: We all know how Chief Whips do these things. No Chief Whip himself has ever blocked Measure; his supporters do it by his instructions, and, in any case, if that Measure was not blocked by the Labour Government, why did not the Chief Whip provide time for its passage? Can anything be more absurd—to use no stronger word—than for the Labour party now to have to press in the present crisis for the passage of a Bill which, for two years, they themselves blocked? [Interruption.] On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member in order in referring to my statement as a lie?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear the remark that was made.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The hon. Baronet has made the statement twice that a certain Bill has been before this House for two years. I think it is better that we should be accurate. The Bill was brought in, I think, a matter of nine months ago.

Major COHEN: Three months.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Baronet will, I think, agree that, as most Members are interested in this Bill, and desire to see it passed, on whichever side of the House they are, he might at least withdraw the statement that the Labour Government have for two years blocked this particular Measure.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I do not withdraw that observation, because I understand that the Bill has been before the House for something of that period.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The introducer of the Bill has himself stated that it is only three months since he brought the Bill into the House, and had it, accepted, and, therefore, the records of the House are against the hon. Baronet.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I will not withdraw the observation that the Bill has been blocked for a very long time in this House from the Labour benches, and certainly I will not withdraw any observation I made in the face of hon. Members who make, in a way which Mr. Speaker cannot hear, an observation which they would not make to me outside this House—an observation, I venture to say, which the hon. Member in question would not address to me twice outside this House, and which the Rules of Procedure are supposed to forbid in this House. To those who do not wish to turn this venerable Chamber into a bear garden, I shall proceed a with the observations which I have to address to the House. I rose to express my support of the proposal which the Government have made. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench, by the speech which he made, provided the best possible reason for a curtailment of Parliamentary, Debate. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman's own leader recognised and admitted that a crisis existed in this country. To-day the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from that bench treated us to a speech typical of old-fashioned Parliamentary obstruction. That was a foretaste of what the Government have to expect in time of crisis from the Labour party if they do not take power to curtail Parliamentary Debate.
Whether we agree or disagree with the Measures proposed by the Govern-
ment of the day, I think that we are all compelled to agree that nothing but some policy of rapid action by the Government can extricate this country, and, therefore, in my view, whatever Government has the confidence of this House must have full facility to pass its Measures and put its policy to the test. I do not believe in the policy of the Government, but I believe that that policy should be given a fair trial, and, if that policy fails, I believe that another policy should be offered. The only possible way to get out of our present difficulties is to act quickly, and it is impossible for rapid action to take place if there are Parliamentary delay and obstruction of the old-fashioned order. I would urge the Government to go a great deal further. They have before them, I believe, the report of the Committee on Parliamentary Procedure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I read it in the Press. Anyhow, it will very shortly be available, and I would urge upon the Government, in view of the developing crisis with which we are faced, that they should consider securing far wider powers of action by Government than exist to-day. If it becomes not just a matter of introducing Supplementary Estimates and an Economy Bill, but, as I believe it must, a matter of reconstructing the industries of this country, the only way to do it with rapidity is for the Government to pass through this House a General Powers Bill conferring upon themselves rapid powers of action, without contracting Parliamentary control.
That is no dictatorship, provided the control of this House is maintained, and if the Government can be dismissed any day by a Vote of Censure, no one can say that the Government is a dictatorship. Any man who is subject to dismissal by his employer any evening is not a dictator, and if a Government can be dismissed any day by a Vote of Censure by the House of Commons, it is nonsense to talk of such a system as a dictatorship. By what other system, except that of giving the Government a free hand to take action, so long as the control of the House of Commons is maintained, can the present situation
be met? The House of Commons may not be ready—of course, it is not ready —to go as far as that at present, but I do earnestly beg the House to consider, while there is time, the introduction of a Measure of that kind when it becomes necessary, and, in supporting this proposal of the Government as a first very small instalment of a policy of action, I urge upon the Government and the House consideration of the graver situation which may arise, and of the drastic measures which may be necessary to meet it.

Mr. HOFFMAN: I desire to draw the attention of the House to one small matter, and what I am going to suggest is in the interests of economy. During the War, power was given to the Government to close all the shops of the country at a certain time of night for the purposes of saving light and heat, and the Bill which I have been allowed to introduce into the House, and was unanimously agreed to under the 10 minutes' rule, is only a little Bill. It merely means the alteration of one word in an Act of Parliament, but that alteration of one word will give power to local authorities to make closing orders earlier than they are today. With such powers, economy would be introduced into the working of retail business shops, there would be a lowering of costs, and, possibly, a lowering of prices to the consumer. Because that is so, I respectfully urge the Lord President of the Council to consider the possibility of giving that power to the local authorities. It is only a small matter, but I put it forward in the interests of national economy.

Mr. KELLY: I want to ask whether it is because of fear or for some other reason that this proposal is now brought forward. The hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) is always so ready to remind those of us who are engaged in industry of the necessity for the reconstruction of industry. All the people who know least about industry, its structure or its conduct, are the people who come to those of us who have been engaged in industry all our lives, and tell us that industry requires reconstruction, though they do not make the slightest suggestion as to
how reconstruction should be carried out. The nearest approach we had to it was the handsome present that a right hon. Gentleman yesterday was prepared to give to the greatest of the 40 thieves who are engaged in industry by protecting their profits. The hon. Baronet says he is quite prepared to give the Government an opportunity for rushing through its business and preventing private Members from having an opportunity of expressing themselves or promoting anything that they think necessary at the present time. The Government say that they want all the time. Without stating what their proposals are they come to the House and say, "Without letting you know what we are going to do, except that we are going to talk in terms of economy and are going to deal with wages, and are going to attack the whole of the working folk of this country by making their position worse than it is to-day, private Mernbers shall have no place or part in this particular House."
As a private Member I was hoping to have the opportunity of raising a question relating to some members of the Civil Service, relating to the people who are engaged, as the Chief Whip realises—I once sat on a committee with him—in the service of the Admiralty, whose wages are being attacked, and those engaged by the War Office, whose wages also are being attacked, and those engaged in various other Departments. But no; the Government say that all they want is to give security—security that the wage reduction will be only a small one as against the dangerous sliding scale that would make matters worse at the moment. I never knew a House to be treated so unfairly. I am amazed that someone who is endeavouring to lead a new party should support the stifling of discussion in this House. Why are we asked to carry the Motion? What are the Measures that will take any long time?
I have one Bill on the Order Paper. It deals with religious freedom. But no; the Government say, "We are not going to give you an opportunity to grant religious freedom to the Spiritualists of this country." What about the Liberal party, who claim to be the standard-bearers of religious liberty? They are going to support this Motion and prevent the Spiritualists of this country hav-
ing the opportunity of professing and practising their particular worship. The Government say there is no time for such a Bill. They say, in effect, "Although we are thinking of economy, we are going to spend money and waste the money of the country by engaging the police force, by engaging more and more detectives and more and more policemen, so that they can watch Sir Oliver Lodge and the family of the late Sir A. Conan Doyle to see that they do not practise Spiritualism." I am amazed to think that we are asked to forgo the whole of private Menthers' time. I wonder what the teachers of the country are going to say when they realise that private Members are to be denied the opportunity of defending them against the vicious attack that is now being made upon their wages. I can quite understand the method that is being adopted by the. Government. It was well described by an hon. Member who referred to the Government as a breakdown gang. I do not know why the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) had to defend himself against the charge that he was a delegate to this House, that he belonged to some caucus or other.

Mr. E. BROWN: The charge was the other way, on you.

Mr. KELLY: I understand the hon. Member saying that, but it is not true. Those who sit on this side are the representatives of their constituency. The hon. and gallant Member who has just whispered to the hon. Member for Leith is an employer whom I have had to meet. on more than one occasion and he knows that full well.

Mr. SPEAKER: It will not be in Order for the hon. Member to pursue that. subject.

Mr. KELLY: I am sorry if I transgressed. I suggest that the hon. Member was justified in only one of his statements. That was that this is not a normal House, that it is not called normally. Judging by the proposals that we are asked to consider I should say that it is not normal, and that it will not be normal when the majority on the Government side carries the proposals to the Statute Book. I was hoping that the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan),
who is sitting next to the hon. Member for Leith, would have corrected him. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to applaud the suggestion of crisis. I do not know what particular knowledge he has as to a crisis in this country, whether it is knowledge of any of those foreigners who are dictating to this country as to what it should do. Is this part of the order, the bargain, that you have been told by these people? I know people say that it is wrong to refer to a conspiracy, but it is a very strange thing that many statements were made by employers in the conference room—

Mr. SPEAKER: That subject has nothing whatever to do with the Motion now before the House.

Mr. KELLY: I am sorry if that is so. I made a reference to it because I felt that the taking away of private Members' time would not enable us to put these points regarding what is happening in the world of finance and industry. I content myself with what I have said about it. I would like to know whether facilities are to be given for the particular Measure relating to religious liberty that I have mentioned.

Major LLEWELLIN: It was blocked by your own Whips Ali last Session.

Mr. KELLY: Yes, and they were wrong. They may be right now, but at least they were wrong then. The hon. and gallant Member who interjected should not follow a bad example, but should try to set a good example on this occasion. Why is it that the new Government are holding the Saturday so sacred that they are making sure by this Motion that they will not have to engage in any work on a Saturday? Does it mean that if things are in a serious condition we shall not be called upon to meet on a Saturday because the new Government think that Saturday is a sacred day? Apparently we are to go home on Friday at 4 o'clock until the following Monday morning. [Interruption.] I realise that there are some of the Jewish faith in the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "And on your own side."] I honour the faith of people, and I wish that the Government would do so.

Mr. SPEAKER: That subject is also out of Order. I have three times drawn
the hon. Member s attention to the fact that he is out of Order, and I cannot go on doing it.

Mr. KELLY: it was an interjection that made me transgress. I do not wish to say a wrong word regarding anyone's faith. The Motion before the House ought not to be passed. The rules of the House are adequate to deal with the situation, and it is unjust to the House to bring forward such a Motion at the present time.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: I rise now because when I first of all made some observations the right hon. Gentleman who followed me complained that I had said too little, and now when I rise again I am met with cries of "Gag" It is difficult to know what hon. Members do want. As a matter of fact, I have risen to answer various questions which have been put to me with courtesy and perfect propriety. Some of the questions were a little less relevant than others, and there have been some observations to which I do not propose to give any answer at all. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman who replied to me was led away, as so many able men are, by his own subtlety. I am really a very simple person. When I said two or three, minutes ago that we wanted to get our business finished for obvious reasons, it was perfectly patent that the obvious reasons were a General Election, because we were just beginning the last year of our term of office and our intention was well known. Equally it seemed perfectly patent that when I said that we wished to get this legislation through for obvious reasons, it might be within the recollection of the House that I said yesterday that time is of the essence of the contract. It is necessary for the world at large to know that we not only have proposals to put into law, but that we have put them into law as quickly as possible. Nothing was further from my mind than a General Election, but it did afford an opportunity for some humorous observations, and I have no complaint to make about that.
I have been asked about the business. The principal business is the Economy Bill and the Finance Bill. There will also be a Public Works Loans Bill. It is possible that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill may be taken, hut that is
not certain yet. There are certain other Bills, mainly of a non-controversial nature, which are being examined at present, and the moment a decision is reached as to whether or not they shall be taken, the House will be acquainted with the fact.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if that includes the London Passenger Transport Bill?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot give any details at present. That question ought to be addressed as usual to the Leader of the House. With regard to the business, to-morrow is Thursday, the day when a statement as to business is always made by the Leader of the House and the business for next week will then be announced. I respectfully suggest that questions on business should be addressed to the Leader of the House, as is customary, at that time. With regard to the complaint put up by private Members about Private Members' Bills, I have every sympathy with them. I have heard that complaint every year that I have been in the House of Commons, and I may have made it myself. But what we have to look at is this. Whatever Government is in power no Private Members' Bill at this time of the Session ever has a chance of getting through. I cannot hold out any hope that we can make exceptions in this special period of the Session, having regard to the fact that no exceptions have been made that I know of by the Government on any of these occasions.
I would like to make an observation about Bills in progress, touching the point mentioned by hon. Members opposite. These come within the category of Bills, as to which we are considering what should be done. There is very little chance of any Bill in progress being further considered, unless it is treated as entirely non-controversial, but I will not commit myself. Each case is being carefully examined and immediately a decision has been come to the House will be acquainted with it. There is no desire to hide anything of the kind. I should like to say a few words in answer to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). There is no one in the House who cormbines a more innocent and appealing expression with skill in these matters than he, and when he looked at me and said,
"A. Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule—what is it?" I felt inclined to reply, "Yes, what is it?" I quite agree. If one man treads upon your toes you do not mind it much, but if 20 men do it at once you do mind it." As far as I am concerned I would not mind the hon. Member putting down one of his little Bills under the Ten Minute's Rule, but what if 20 of his friends should put down such Bills on the same day? Where would the Government business be then? We cannot risk it.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am grateful for the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, but can he tell me if there is going to be anything within the proposals of the Government that will deal with rent restrictions?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think I ought to divulge any portion of the Chancellor's speech. If the hon. Member cares to do so he will be able to listen to it to-morrow and the taking of the time of private Members will not limit any contribution which the hon. Member may desire to offer. I think those are the proper and legitimate points which have been raised. I have tried to answer them as briefly as I can. I recognise that it is, perhaps, specially incumbent upon me to keep in order on this occasion; I quite recognise the extreme narrowness of the terms of the Resolution which we are considering, and therefore I do not propose to say anything further.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: The explanation which has been offered by the right hon. Gentleman is most unsatisfactory and does not in any sense justify us in accepting the proposal of the Government. I understood the right. hon. Gentleman to base his argument for the necessity for this step upon two principles. First, he told us that, in normal times, any Private Members' Bills at this stage of the Session had no chance of reaching the Statute Book. Secondly, he said that the Government were appropriating these privileges of the Private Member, because 20 Members might, possibly, for purposes of obstruction, put down Bills on the same day. I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to consider the rather exceptional circumstances which exist. We are undoubtedly living in a period of great public anxiety and misgiving about the position of the country and I am rather surprised that
the right hon. Gentleman should fall back upon an argument which deals with normality, as an excuse for this proposal. After all, this is not a normal Government. We are not living in normal times and if the Government is to carry out its duties as a National Government, then the last thing it ought to do is to deprive Private Members of the opportunity of making suggestions in relation to this crisis.
We all appreciate the fact that as far as major issues of policy arc concerned the responsibility must rest upon the Government of the day. If this is to be really a National Government then, certainly it ought not to prevent the ordinary Private Member, who represents his constituency in this House, from bringing forward such proposals as he can think of-proposals which may be useful to the nation, which, without imposing taxation, many have general approval in all parts of the House, and which might, possibly with great advantage, he placed upon the Statute Book even during an emergency Session of Parliament. I am sure that if a completely frivolous use of Private Members' time were made in order to prevent the serious issues which Parliament is called upon to face being properly discussed, the Government might then be justified in taking the step now proposed. But they are not entitled to take such a step without giving some indication of how they propose to use the time. There is an old adage with which we are all familiar, that it. is the duty of an Opposition to oppose and that the more time an Opposition can waste, the less harm a Government can do. That adage may be fitted to normal times. What we want now is not the opportunity of opposition merely for the sake of opposition, but we are entitled to retain our privileges of opposing when we think that national interests are being severely damaged.
To take away the privileges of private Members in the way proposed is an outrage upon the Parliamentary system. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) raised an extremely important issue with regard to the question of rents. If unemployed people are to suffer heavy reductions in the sums of money available for them, it becomes a matter of tremendous importance whether or not rents
are to be reduced. There are many other issues of a similar character. A great many unemployed men have undertaken responsibilities for the purchase of their houses on the instalment system. They have mortgages to meet and all kinds of difficulties to face. We have been assured by very high financial authorities and we have had many indications of the fact that a policy is being pursued, part of which is a deliberate plan to reduce wages and salaries, not only in the public service but throughout the whole field of production. A great many problems will be created which cannot be foreseen in framing a temporary policy merely to save money.
As part of that policy to which I have referred we are witnessing developments in this country in which ordinary shareholders in a great many industrial undertakings are being robbed of their life savings; industries and businesses are going into the hands of debenture holders; industries are being closed down without any regard for the interests of local communities and so on. Problems of this kind open up a wide field where the private Member might be able to make his or her contribution to the problems with which this emergency Government is faced. Let me draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to one matter which might have an extremely important. effect upon the balancing of the Budget. We all know that in many areas of this country to-day there are thousands of men—in the aggregate probably hundreds of thousands of men—who are working overtime and long hours. On the other hand you have men going to the Employment Exchanges, who are equally efficient and who have perhaps been in the service of the same firms for half their lifetime—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see that this has anything to do with the Motion.

Mr. TAYLOR: If you would be kind enough, Sir, to allow me to develop my argument, I respectfully suggest that it has great relevance to the business before the, House.

Mr. SPEAKER: If I allow the hon. Member to develop his argument it will then be too late to intervene.

Mr. TAYLOR: I do not wish, Sir, to refrain from observing your wishes but I was about to say that a private Members Bill which made it illegal for a
firm to overwork large numbers of employés, without any economic necessity, thus creating a charge on public funds for unemployment insurance, could be brought forward and that a well thought-out Bill on those lines might, both on grounds of economy and of expediency, command almost universal assent. If this is a National Government, if it is a Government concerned with economy and anxious to save public funds, there is a suggestion for it which might be put forward by a private Member but is not in the least likely to be put forward by the so-called National Government. If the Government is really national why does it propose to rob itself of the opportunity of considering suggestions from private Members which might help the nation to face up to the difficulties Confronting it?
I think it is indefensible for the right hon. Gentleman to make himself responsible for a Resolution of this kind without giving us the slightest indication of how the Government propose to use the time. If they propose to utilise it in ways indicated by some speeches of Members of the Government they may do far more harm than the private Member could possibly do. They may damage the country's interests far more in those ways than they would by allowing the private Member to have his say. I hope that Members, irrespective of party, in view of their responsibilities to their constituents and not to Parliamentary machines, and not to the Whips of the Government, will not go into the Lobby

merely to register an automatic vote. Because, after conference with the Governor of the Bank of England and their economic advisers, the Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council, and a small handful of men, in consultation with forces cutside this House, may reach decisions in relation to economy and the future of the country, which supporters of the Government will flock into the Lobbies to vote for, like a flock of sheep—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member has fully developed his argument now.

Mr. TAYLOR: I do not wish to prolong the discussion unnecessarily nor do I wish, Sir, to incur your displeasure. A National Government ought to be the last to take away the rights of the private Member and to prevent his making constructive suggestions to meet the difficulties with which the State is confronted. I hope that Members on all sides of the House will see to it that this power is not taken away from the private Member.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 306: Noes, 212.

Division No. 466.]
AYES.
[4.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Subert Burton


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. M. (Edgbaston)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Boyce, H. L.
Chapman, Sir S.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Bracken, B.
Christie, J. A.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Church, Major A. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrld W.
Briscoe, Richard George
Clydesdale, Marquees of


Alike, Sir Robert
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Astor, Maj. Hn.John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Astor, Viscountess
Brown, Brig.-Gen, H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Atholl, Duchess of
Buchan, John
Colfox, Major William Philip


Atkinson, C.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Colman, N. C. D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Colville, Major D. J.


Balniel, Lord
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Butler, R. A.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Beaumont, M. W.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Bellairs. Commander Carlyon
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Cowan, D. M.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Campbell, E. T.
Cranbourne, Viscount


Berry, Sir George
Carver, Major W. H.
Crlchton-Stuart, Lord C.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Sevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.


Birehalt, Major Sir John Oearman
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Birkett, W. Norman
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Bilndell, James
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Iveagh, Countess of
Ramsbotham, H.


Davles, Dr. Vernon
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Davles, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Dlxey, A. C.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Rhys, Hon. Charles


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Knight, Hollord
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ross, Ronald D.


Edge, Sir William
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Rothschild, J. de


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Runciman. Rt. Hon. Walter


Elmlay, Viscount
Lelghton. Ma|or B. E. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


England, Colonel A.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Salmon, Major I.


Evans, Capt, Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Ferguson, Sir John
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Fermoy, Lord
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Savery, S. S.


Flelden, E. B.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Scott, James


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Lymington, Viscount
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Foot, Isaac
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Skelton, A. N.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Macdonaid, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallaml


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Galbralth, J. F. W.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macqulsten, F. A.
Smithers, Waldron


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Somerset, Thomas


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)


Gliiett, George M.
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Meller, R. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gower, Sir Robert
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Millar, J. D.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Granville, E.
Milne, Wardlaw, J. S.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Grattanu-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gray, Milner
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro' W.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Thompson, Luke


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Thomson, Sir F.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwlck)
Train, J.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mulrhead, A. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mall-Cain, A. R. N.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Nathan. Major H. L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hammersley, S. S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Hanbury, C.
Newton, sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Ward, Lleut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Harbord, A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Harris, Percy A.
O'Connor, T. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hartington, Marquess of
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wells, Sydney R.


Haslam, Henry C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
White, H. G.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Penny, Sir George
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Withers, Sir John James


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Poto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Womersley, W. J.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hurd. Percy A.
Purbrlck, R.



Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Pybus, Percy John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen, Sir R.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Mr. Glassey and Major the Marquess




of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Angell, Sir Norman
Barnes, Alfred John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Arnott, John
Barr, James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Attlee, Clement Richard
Batey, Joseph


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Ayles, Walter
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)


Ammon, Charles George
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Benson, G.




Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Kelly, W. T.
Rltson, J.


Bowen, J. W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Romerll, H. G.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Rowson, Guy


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kinley, J.
Salter, Dr. Aifrerd


Bromfield, William
Kirkwood, D.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Brooke, W.
Lang, Gordon
Sanders, W. S.


Brothers, M.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon, George
Sandham, E.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sawyer, G. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lawrence, Susan
Scurr, John


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Lawson, John James
Sexton, Sir James


Buchanan, G.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Leach, W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Shield, George William


Charlcton, H. C.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shiels, Or. Drummond


Chater, Daniel
Leonard, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Clarke, J. S.
Lewis, T, (Southampton)
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lioyd, C. Ellis
Short, Ailred (Wodnesbury)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Logan, David Gilbert
Simmons, C. J.


Compton, Joseph
Long bottom, A. W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Longden, F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dallas, Georne
Macdonald, Gordon (ince)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Dalton, Hugh
McElwee, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McKinlay, A.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Day, Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sorensen, R.


Duncan, Charles
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Dunnico, H.
McShane, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Ede, James Chuter
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Strachey, E. J. St. Lue


Edmunds, J. E.
Manning, E. L.
Strauss, G. R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mansfield, W.
Sullivan, J.


Egan, W. H.
March, S.
Sutton, J. E.


Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)
Marcus, M.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Freeman, Peter
Mariey, J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marshall, Fred
Thurtle, Ernest


Gibblns, Joseph
Mathers, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibson. H. M. (Lanes, Mossiey)
Maxton, James
Toole, Joseph


Gossling, A. G.
Messer, Fred
Tout, W. J.


Gould, F.
Middleton, G.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mills, J. E.
Vaughan, David


Graham, Rt. Hon WM. (Edln.,Cent.)
Milner, Major J.
Vlant, S. P.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Walker, J.


Grenlell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Money, Ralph
Wallace, H. W.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watklns, F. C.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mort, D L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton]
Muff, G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Muggerldge, H. T.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Murnln, Hugh
Wellock, Wilfred


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
West, F. R.


Hardie, G. D. (Sprlngburn)
Oldfield, J. R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Haycock. A. W.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwlck)
Palln, John Henry
Williams, Oavid (Swansea, East)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Herriotts, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Or. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Perry, S. F.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hoffman, P. C.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hopkin, Daniel
Pole, Major D. G.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Horrabin, J. F.
Potts, John S.
Wise, E. F.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Price, M. P.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Jenkins, Sir William
Qulbell, D. J. K.
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Raynes. W. R.



Johnston. Rt. Hon. Thomas
Richards, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Haves and Mr. Paling.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is the Motion to be divided upon separately on the different points in it, or do you intend, Mr. Speaker, to take all the points as one Motion?

Mr. SPEAKER: If that demand had been made earlier, when I first put the Question, I could have divided it into three, but now that I have put it and the Question in regard to the Closure has been settled by the House, I cannot take that course.

Mr. MACLEAN: Further to that point of Order. Will you consider, Mr. Speaker, that there was no opportunity to put that matter earlier? I rose several times during the Debate, but was not called, so as to put that point. Further, the Closure was moved against us, and it is well known that we cannot put such a question during the period when the Division is in progress.

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter should have been raised when the Question was
first put at the beginning of the sitting, and then I could have put each point separately, but I cannot do that now.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I put it to you, with all respect, that it was impossible to have that matter put earlier? I have already stated that I rose several times to speak on this matter, but you did not call upon me. I tried to put it at the earliest possible time. As the Debate has gone on for about two hours, it. is surely advisable that these particular points should be put separately.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the House will agree that I generally give Members every opportunity of putting points of Order. The point raised by the hon. Member would obviously have been a point of Order.

Mr. MACLEAN: I had hoped to put it during a speech.

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes, 308; Noes, 215.

Division No. 467.]
AYES.
[5.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralglt M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Granville, E.


Albery, Irving James
Cockerill, Brlg.-General Sir George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gray, Milner


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Colman, N. C. D.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wllfrid W.
Colville, Major D. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Aske, Sir Robert
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grltten, W. G. Howard


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Astor, Viscountess
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Atkinson, C.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Ballile-Hemilton, Hen. Charles W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Crlchton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hammersley, S. S.


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hanbury, C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol. West)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Beaumont, M. W.
Cunllffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Harbord, A.


Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harris, Percy A.


Bennett. Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Darlington, Marquess of


Berry, Sir George
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Tutnes)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Haslam, Henry C.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Birkett, W. Norman
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hennesey, Major Sir G. R. J.


Blindell, James
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dixey, A. C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Mope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. w.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Boyce, Leslie
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. u. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bracken, B.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bralthwalte, Major A. N.
Edge, Sir William
Hurd, Percy A.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Briscoe, Richard George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Elmley. Viscount
Iveagh, Countess of


Brown, Ernest (Lelth)
England, Colonel A.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset.Weston-s-M.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Buchan, john
Evans. Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Ferguson, Sir John
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Burton. Colonel H. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Butler, R. A.
Flelden, E. B.
Knight, Holford


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Foot, Isaac
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Campbell, E. T.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Carver, Major W. H.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Latham. H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francls E
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Cayzer, MaJ.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Galbralth, J. F. W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Chadwick. Capt. Sir Robert Burton
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Llewelin, Major J. J.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.W.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handswath)


Chapman, Sir S.
Gillett, George M.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Christie, J. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Church, Major A. G.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gower, Sir Robert
Lymington, Viscount


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Basset law)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall. N.)
Purbrick, R.
.Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Pybus, Percy John
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur


Macquisten, F. A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ramsbotham, H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Makins. Brigadier-General E.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rawson. Sir Cooper
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Thomas, Rt, Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Marjorlbanks, Edward
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Thompson, Luke


Meller, R. J.
Rhys, Hon. Charles
Thomson, Sir F.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Miller, J. D.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Train, J.


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Rosbotham. D. S. T.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Ross, Ronald D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Rothschild, J. do
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Ruggles-Brlse, Colonel E.
Walters, St. Hon. Sir 1. Tudor


Morris-Jones, Or. J. H. (Denbigh)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)
Waterhouse. Captain Charles


Mosley. Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Salmon, Major I.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Samuel, A. M. (Su rey, Farnham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Mulrhead, A. J.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
White, H. G.


Nail-Cain. A. R. N.
Sandeman. Sir N. Stewart
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Nathan, Major H. L
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Savery, S. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Scott, James
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Withers, Sir John James


Nicholson, Col.Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsl'ld)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


O'Connor, T. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Womersley, W. J.


Oliver. P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sinclair. Sir A. (Caithness)
Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff)


Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William
Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Young. Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne.C.)



Peake, Captain Osbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
TELLERS FOR THB AYES.—


Penny, Sir George
Smithers, Waldron
Maior the Marquess of Titchfield and Mr. Classey.


Percy, Lord Eustac (Hastings)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip



Perkins, W. R. D.
Somerset, Thomas



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Dallas, George
Hopkin, Daniel


Adamson, W. M. (Staft., Cannock)
Dalton, Hugh
Horrabin, J. F.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Davles, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfieid)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, Sir William


Alpass, J. H.
Day, Harry
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Amnion, Charles George
Duncan, Charles
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Angell, Sir Norman
Dunnico, H.
Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)


Arnott, John
Ede, James Chuter
Jowett, Rt. Hon, F. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edmunds, J. E.
Kelly, W. T.


Ayles, Walter
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Baker, Jchn(Wolverhampton. Blliton)
Egan, W. H.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Barnes, Alfred John
Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead
Kinley, J.


Barr, James
Freeman, Peter
Kirkwood, D.


Batey, Joseph
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lang, Gordon


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bennett, William (Battersen, South)
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Law, A. (Rosscndale)


Benson, G.
Gossling, A. G.
Lawrence. Susan


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gould, F.
Lawson, John James


Bowen, J. W.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Graham, Rt. Hon. WM. (Edln., Cent.)
Loach, w.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lee, Frank (Derby,. N.E.)


Bromfleld, William
Grenlell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Brooke, W.
Graves, Thomas E.
Leonard. W.


Brothers, M.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield!
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Logan, David Gilbert


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hall, J. H. (Whltechapel)
Longbottom, A. W.


Buchanan. G.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth. C j
Longden, F.


Buxton, C. R. fYorks. W. R. Elland)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lunn, William


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Macdonald, Gordon (Incc)


Charleton. H. C.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
McElwee, A.


Chator, Daniel
Haycock, A. w.
McEntee, V. L.


Clark, J. S.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
McKinlay, A.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfleld)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Cocke, Frederick Seymour
Herrlotts, 1.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Compton. Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
McShane, John James


Crlppa, Sir Stafford
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Daggar, George
Hoffman, P. C.
Manning, E. L.




Mansfield, W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


March, S.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Thurtle, Ernest


Marcus, M.
Rltson, J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Marley, J.
Romeril, H. G.
Toole, Joseph


Marshall, Fred
Rowson, Guy
Tout, W. J.


Mathers, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Maxton, James
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Vaughan, David


Messer, Fred
Sanders, W. S.
Viant. S. P.


Middleton, G.
Sandham, E.
Walker, J.


Mills, J. E.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Milner, Major J.
Scurr, John
Watkins, F. C.


Montague, Frederick
Sexton, Sir James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Morley, Ralph
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sherwood, G. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Mort, D. L.
Shield, George William
Wellock, Wilfred


Muff, G.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Muggerldge, H. T.
Shillaker, J. F.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Murnin, Hugh
Shinwell. E.
West, F. R.


Naylor, T. E.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whiteley. Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Simmons. C. J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Noel-Buxton. Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, David (Swansea, East;


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Palin, John Henry
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H.B.(Keighley)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Palmer, E. T.
Smith, Tom (Pontetract)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Perry, S. F.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sorensen. R.
Winterton, G.E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Phillips, Or. Marlon
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wise, E. F.


Pole, Major D. G.
Stephen, Campbell
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Potts, John S.
Strachey, E. J. St. Lee
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Price, M. P.
Strauss, G. R.



Quibell, D. J. K.
Sullivan. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Raynes, W. R.
Sutton, J. E.
Mr. Paling and Mr. Hayes.


Richards, R.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)



Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That during the remainder of the Session:

(1) No Motions shall be made for leave to bring in Bills;
(2) At the conclusion of Government Business, or of Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any Order, Rule, or Regulation to be laid before the House of Commons, which shall be taken immediately after Government Business, Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question, That this House do now adjourn, and, if that Question shall not have been agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put, not later than one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, if that Business has been concluded before 10.30 p.m., but, if that Business has not been so concluded, not later than 11.30 p.m.;
(3) If the day he a Friday the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee stage of the Resolutions, with the exception of the last Resolution, to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means on Thursday, 10th September. 1931, shall be brought to a conclusion on that day, and at Eleven of the clock the Chairman shall, if such proceedings have
not previously been brought to a conclusion, forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution then under discussion and shall then forthwith put the Question in respect of each subsequent Resolution, except the last Resolution, and shall immediately report the Resolutions to the House without Question put, and that the proceedings under this Order shall pot be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House."—[Mr. S. Baldwin.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Surely we are going to have one word from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: I understood that the Motion had to be put from the Chair before I could speak. This is a rather formidable-looking Motion, but it will be recognised by all who are familiar with the practice of the House as merely stereotyping our ordinary Budget.practice. The ordinary Budget practice for many years past has been that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer opens his Budget all the substantive Resolutions that affect taxation are passed the same night, the reason being, of course, that if after any change in taxation became known outside there were any delay in making that change effective, the revenue would run a chance of losing, it might be, millions, and a number of worthy people, but people
whom it is not our part to make wealthy at our expense, would profit considerably. One Resolution, which does not affect the revenue, is always left over so as to keep the Debate open for another day. That is all that this Motion does. It is entirely for the protection of the revenue, to make sure that whatever changes may be proposed to-morrow shall become effective for the protection of the revenue, and the Debate can take place to-morrow and go on as is customary in Budget proceedings on the next day for which they are put down. That will probably be Tuesday, but the date will be announced definitely to-morrow.
It makes no difference at all in the ordinary Budget procedure. It imposes no limitation of Debate which bas not been imposed for years by the general practice of the House. It only prevents the possibility of the discussion, in the excitement of the moment, becoming so protracted that we could not get the substantive Resolutions affecting taxation passed to-morrow night. That is essential, and it is for that purpose, and for that purpose alone, that this Motion is moved. There is nothing more in it than that. It has no effect on any part of the Debate after to-morrow. The only effect it has on to-morrow is that it ensures the usual Budget practice being complied with, ensures our getting all the necessary Resolutions that affect taxation on the first night, which is for the protection of the revenue and the defeat of the profiteer.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has given a clear explanation of the reason for this Motion, though I may say that it was not very obvious until his speech was made. Still, there are one or two questions which. I wish to put to him. First of all, I wish to take this opportunity of securing an assurance that we are to have the full ordinary opportunities in the subsequent discussions on the Budget Resolution. As the Lord President has explained, on Budget night we pass all the Resolutions that the Government require for the security of the revenue, and one is left open, and on that there takes place a general discussion upon the whole financial scheme of the Budget. I have looked up what has happened on ordinary, humdrum occasions, and I find that in the
usual way two days have been allowed for the general discussion, and then after that we have gone on to the details of each Resolution. They have been considered one by one, and Amendments have been moved, and at least a couple of days have been allowed for the more detailed discussion. I think we are entitled to ask the Lord President whether we are to have a full opportunity, allowing for the presumably exceptional nature of the present occasion, to discuss the Budget, and an opportunity to discuss it on the same general basis as has been laid down for previous Budgets, probably allowing a longer time, if this Budget is of a very unusual character.
There is one further question I would put to the Lord President. He said that this Motion merely stereotyped ordinary Budget practice, but I think I am right in saying that no such Motion has ever previously been brought before this House. What has happened on other Budget nights has been that the Government have moved and have carried the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, and that has allowed elasticity if the discussion happened to continue a considerable time. On this occasion the Government, instead of doing that, have substituted a Guillotine Resolution, bringing the Debate to an end at 11 o'clock. I quite agree that it may not make much difference in practice, but if very important and highly-controversial Budgets can be dealt with by the suspension of the-Eleven o'Clock Rule I do not know why, in this particular Budget, there is a, necessity for this really super-protection. I would ask that question, because the reason is not obvious.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: First of all, I want to register a protest against the particular part of the Motion to which my hon. Friend referred briefly a moment ago. Why should the proceedings come to an end at 11 o'clock? That would be a departure from precedent. in the case of financial discussions; in Committee of Ways and Means there ought not to be a curtailment of Debate. Tomorrow we shall begin in the usual way with Questions, and, judging by the Order Paper, they will take their full hour, and, therefore, we shall not have the length of Debate that we have had on these first two days. Then we have been told again and again that the present condition of
affairs is abnormal, and we naturally expect some startling proposals from the Government. I hope they are not going to disappoint us. I suppose we are not going to have the old humdrum stuff—extensions of existing taxes. I hope we are not going to have the Tea Duty reintroduced, for example. I hope there is going to be something new. For instance, I hope there will be a good big tax put on certain luxuries which, I shall refer to as a matter of illustration. It is essential that one of the most elementary rights of hon. Members to free discussion in Committee of Ways and Means, without limitation by the Eleven o'Clock Rule, should not be taken away.
The right hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me to say so, is making a very bad start in his handling of the House—for it is obvious that he, with his massed battalions behind him, is going to be the real Leader of the House in this Parliament. May I say to him that never have I felt more inclined to follow his advice than when I heard his first speech this afternoon? The right hon. Gentleman has my very great sympathy, and I would very much like to support him on this occasion, to show how deeply I sympathise with him. One of the finest things the right hon. Gentleman did from a national point of view was to break up the last Coalition Government. I was as opposed to his politics at that time as it was possible to be, but I hated the Coalition Government of that day as much as he did, and I thought he acted a national part of great value in breaking up that coalition. I know that he feels his position in the present Coalition Government to be extremely uncomfortable, and that he is only acting as he has acted from what he obviously considers to be a sense of national duty, mistaken though I think it to be. We know that he came home in a hurry from the Continent, where he had been buying British goods in Aix-les-Bains, and, with no time to be fully seized of the situation, allowed himself to be rushed into his present position. He was told all sorts of weird stories about the pound following the mark, and so on.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. and gallant Member
would have done better if he had made this speech in the Debate yesterday rather than to-day.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My concluding words on this point would have brought me strictly into order I think. What I was going to say was that all that is no excuse for taking away the fundamental rights of Parliament to control taxation. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has yet realised that the fight waged by his Puritan ancestors, to which he is very fond of referring, with justifiable pride, is going to be fought all over again by us on these benches. [Interruption.] Yes, this is the first shot. This is removing the right of this House to exercise control over finance. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Guillotine for the last Finance Bill?"] The coming fight is to be over who is to dictate the method of taxation in this country. Is it to be this elected House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or the Trades Union Congress?'] It is no use hon. Members shouting "Trades Union Congress" at me. I am not a trade union nominee. I have fought my seat as a member of two parties. [Interruption.] I think the Trades Union Congress are right on this occasion, but I may think they are wrong on other occasions, and if necessary I shall oppose them. It is no use hon. Members shouting "Trades Union Congress" at me.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to allow the hon. and gallant Member to make his speech.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The fight. in the future is going to be the same as has been fought in the past. In the first place it was a fight against the autocratic monarchies of the past, who were claiming the right to levy taxation without the consent of Parliament. That cost us a civil war. The next fight took place under the leadership of a great Liberal and with the assistance of other great Liberals, two of whom, I am sorry to say, are not with us—one through death and another through illness. That was a fight against those self-appointed guardians of the public finances at the other end of the corridor. That was the last great Liberal victory for democracy, the last effective act of the Liberal party, just as this is their final burying. Now
we have to fight against the same thing once more, and it will be a long and bitter fight, and those of us who go into it will have to suffer in various ways. It is a fight against those powers who have dictated the policy of this Government, whose humble servants the Government are, and who, at the end of their long-range telephone wires will have said whether the Resolutions to be moved to-morrow are to their liking or not. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Resolutions he will vote for to-morrow, and which he will limit our right to discuss, represent decisions taken in Wall Street and—[Interruption.) Oh, no, there was no conspiracy, no plotting, nothing of that kind. It was done most openly, blatantly. Of course, there was no question of orders being issued. It was not done so clumsily as that. Nothing of that sort! The Deputy Governor of the Bank of England did not send his messengers to say, "You are to do this or that." Of course not! He is a gentleman! He was probably at Harrow with the right hon. Gentleman. He is a diplomat, one of the governing class. He does not do things in that way. What he said was, and what he says now—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to confine his remarks to the Motion before the House. His remarks are not within order merely because they are references to Resolutions which are expected tomorrow.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is extremely unfortunate that one should have to raise these matters, and I do not like doing so, but I have to take this course when I am asked to consent to closure the discussion of the Budget Resolutions on the first day at Eleven o'clock. Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not disclose the actual nature of his taxes until after five o'clock. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will he followed by ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer, and we may have a speech occupying an hour from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), with the result that those who are really opposing the Government will be left with about two-and-a-half hours. I do not know how many Resolutions will be proposed to-morrow, but there may be 20. The right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) is an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would like to ask him if he is in favour of increasing the Petrol Duty, or the taxes on sugar, tea and tobacco. Are the Government going to introduce some sumptuary laws? In framing their taxation, the Government will probably introduce some very novel taxes. We have heard about taxes for the protection of morality, but I would like to see a tax placed on cosmetics and face powder. The question of taxing champagne has been suggested, and we have heard what the First Lord of the Admiralty thinks about a champagne tax. I think there ought to be a tax on luxuries. A tax might be very well introduced on imported jewellery, furs, and laces. That would be new taxation and it would raise a new principle as to whether you should tax luxuries—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must again remind the hon. and gallant Member that he must confine his remarks to the Resolution which is now before the House.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to know how many Resolutions we shall be asked to dispose of before Eleven o'clock to-morrow night. New taxes should be effectively discussed, and any curtailment of Debate should be agreed to only for very serious reasons. The Lord President of the Council must know how many Resolutions are going to be taken to-morrow, and therefore he will not be giving away any secrets of the Budget by answering my question.

Mr. EDE: There has recently been sitting a Select Committee on Procedure, and one of the questions considered by that Committee was the way in which Guillotine Motions can be abused. We are now considering a, Guillotine Motion assuring to the Government that at Eleven o'clock to-morrow night the Chairman of Ways and Means shall put forthwith every undisposed-of Motion with regard to the new taxation proposed except the last one. One of the things that can he done is that hon. Members sitting on the Government benches, who do not want to discuss the second, third or fourth Resolutions, may prolong the discussion on the first or earlier Resolutions, with the result that the later Resolutions will not come up for discussion at all.
It would be out of order to ask Mr. Deputy-Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means what Rulings will be given to-morrow, but are we to understand that the Resolutions will be taken in such a form that, as soon as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made his statement, the first Resolution will be proposed, and the discussion will be confined to that particular Resolution? I would like to ask if when the first Resolution has been disposed of, we shall proceed with the second and so on? It was generally agreed among those who gave evidence before the Select Committee on Procedure that if a guillotine Motion was desirable, it was really desirable on financial Measures. I regret that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has left the House, because I recollect that the hon. Member eloquently demonstrated, speaking as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, that if it was desirable that we should have guillotine proposals, it was highly desirable that the guillotine should be so constructed as not to preclude the Opposition from raising the points which they regard as important.
The discussion which is to take place to-morrow is of the very utmost importance, because it is the Government's challenge to the leader writer of the "Times," who said last week that not an extra penny ought to be raised by indirect taxation. I am not going to deal with the merits of direct or indirect taxation on this occasion, but there may be proposals in the Budget dealing with that subject, and such proposals may be so obnoxious to certain people representing the City that they may lead to a prolonged discussion. If such a discussion takes place on the first Resolution, it may shut out discussion tomorrow on Resolutions dealing with a tax on tea, or on some of those articles of luxury with which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) appears to be so familiar.
It was interesting to notice yesterday that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir V. Bowater) who is now sitting on the back bench, thought that yesterday was the first day of a new Session, and he came forward to stake his claim for the City of London on the Front Bench; but the Patronage
Secretary, of course, ordered him to the right part of the ship. That was an accident but it was symbolic. Opposite sits the person who always recalls to me the days of Cromwell. His Department is housed in Cromwell House, and it does not get very far away from the Mace. If this Resolution is carried, we shall be able to discuss to-morrow only those things which the Government desire to have discussed. A most important Budget is to be presented to-morrow, and I suggest to the Lord President of the Council that if he must have his guillotine Resolution, there is no reason for limiting the discussion to-morrow to Eleven o'Clock. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman make the time midnight?
I speak subject to correction—I am not an authority on the rules of the House—but, as far as I am concerned, when the House sits after 12.15, I like to sit until six o'clock in the morning. To-morrow night we shall have no concern about the trains and the trams. We all remember the occasion when Denzil Holies said to Mr. Speaker Finch, "You shall sit until it pleases us to rise." An impudent King sent a message to the Speaker that he was to rise in order that a Member, whose division is now included in the constituency of the Minister for Mines, should not have the opportunity of moving his Resolution against the Crown. I am sure that after having that fact brought to his notice the hon. Member opposite will no longer be a party to this breakdown Government, and how he can sit there side by side with the people who are now sitting on the Treasury Bench, which my right hon. Friends on this side used to adorn, is more than I can understand.
I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley that the profiteers do not open their offices very early in the morning, and he could arrange that the Guillotine should fall at such an hour that any such nefarious attempts as the right hon. Gentleman fears would be defeated. If the right hon. Gentleman will make such an arrangement we shall do our best on this side of the House to fall in with it; but he is now proposing to curtail the first day's discussion of this important Budget, which is to settle whether or not there is to a flight from the pound. A flight of the pound from a very large
number of the public servants of the country and others is certain to be announced to-morrow. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that they will be included; it is well known what great friends of education the main bulk of the Government now are. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot so arrange this Guillotine that we may be assured of a reasonably wide general discussion and a reasonably well ordered Debate—I am not asking for anything more than that in the circumstances—on each of the single Resolutions which the Chairman of Ways and Means may have to put, so that it shall not be said outside, as it will be said if this Resolution is persisted in, that this Government rushed through the House of Commons those things which were unpopular with their own side and which have been condemned by "The Times." After all, we understand from Mr. Garvin, who is one of the major prophets of the present dispensation, that it was mainly upon this question that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends broke the last Government. Mr. Garvin, who knows everything in these matters, says that the late Government were prepared to go 50–50–50 of economies and 50 of new taxation; but the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends came along and demanded 75–25, which Mr. Garvin says is two to one. I see the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) in his place. I was horn in the town that gives the name to his constituency, and I think he will agree with me that on Epsom Downs 75–25 is not two to one.

Commander SOUTHBY: I will take the hon. Gentleman's word on the question of odds laid on Epsom Downs.

Mr. EDE: That is Mr. Garvin's way of reckoning it, and it is symbolical of the arithmetic and the finance behind the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I have tried to say nothing that would exacerbate this Debate. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman had to listen to me for 10 minutes yesterday, which must have been a weariness of the flesh to him; but I appeal to him to forgive me for that, and to afford my hon. Friends tomorrow evening an opportunity of thoroughly examining the financial proposals that will be put before the House.

Mr. BECKETT: I do not want to detain the House for more than a moment or two, because I deprecate very strongly any attempt to keep the House sitting too long at this time; but I do think that the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading the House should give a little more protection to back-benchers than is given by this Resolution. Personally, I think that the Resolution is a reasonable one to put on the Paper, and it does not worry me at all that it is without precedent; I wish that many more things were done without precedent in this House; but I do think that if, when right hon. Gentlemen opposite are reframing our methods of procedure, they are going to restrict so severely the rights of Members of this House to discuss new taxation, they might at the same time put some restriction on their own rights in regard to discussing this new taxation. The Resolution is going to allow us seven hours in which to discuss the whole of the proposals which are to be put forward to-morrow, and, within those seven hours, we shall be extremely fortunate if we get an hour and a-half or an hour and three-quarters left for the rest of the Members of the House after those on the Front Benches have expressed their point of view.
I should expect some sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman who is leading the House this afternoon, because I think he is the only Front Bench Member I have ever heard who has not deplorably wasted the time of the House when making a statement. With the possible exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), I have never had the pleasure, in the seven years that I have been in this House, of hearing a Front Bench speech that would not have been a very much more useful speech had it taken 20 minutes less than it actually took, and I think that what I am saying is common ground with at least 550 of the 615 Members of the House. It has become usual in this House that, directly a Member is elevated to a Front Bench position—I am speaking entirely from a non-party point of view; it is equally true of all parties—he makes a jolly good speech lasting about 10 minutes, and then suddenly remembers that he
is on the Front Bench, and must not sit down under 40 minutes. I think there are very few Members of the House who would disagree with me in this diagnosis of the sufferings of back bench Members in these Debates, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley should certainly sympathise with us, because he has stood for the open shop, he has not joined the union, but has "scabbed" all his colleagues and repeatedly said things in about 20 minutes which any other Front Bench Member would have taken an hour and a-half to say. Therefore, I think we should get a little support from him in the plea that we are making to-day.
We are going to he given seven hours in which to discuss the most important proposals that the nation is going to have, and, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley really feels that that is all that can be allowed, and says that the House must, in the interests of the nation, get these proposals through in seven hours, why cannot he impose some restriction on the three or four of his colleagues on the Front Benches who are going to take at least five and a half of the seven hours away from us? I desire to register my protest in an entirely non-party spirit against that. It is the same in every Debate that takes place in this Chamber on every important issue. I am not making a personal plea; I very seldom wish to speak on these occasions; but, in every important Debate that takes place, we get four or five Front-Bench and would-be Front-Bench speeches, one or two Members who get up on points of order, and ask why they have not been called, are called in order that the House may have a little peace, and the remainder of the House is perpetually gagged. Members sitting on these benches, who are often full of information on particular subjects, and perhaps not the stereotyped information that is usually laid before the House, never have any chance whatever of taking part in the important Debates that take place in this House.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: Is the hon. Member aware that, of the three hours of the Debate this afternoon, at least two and a half hours have been taken up by the Opposition?

Mr. BECKETT: I think the hon. Member will admit that, although I have changed my side of the House, I have not changed my tune. I have protested against this just as much from my own party as from the party opposite. My protest is against the method of conducting Parliamentary business. I have never been able to see much difference on any subject between t he two sides of the Table, and on this subject there is no difference whatever. In fact, as I have said, the only right hon. Gentleman whom I absolve from this particular charge is the hon. Member's own Leader in this House. I am not, making a party attack, but am making a general statement that the time of the House is perpetually wasted in the great majority of cases—

Mr. G. GIBSON: It is being wasted now.

Mr. BECKETT: That is a matter of opinion; I should have resumed my seat by now if the hon. Member had not interrupted me, and I have taken but a very short time to make this statement, because I should deprecate any kind of obstruction at this moment. I do not agree with the Government's proposals, but let them get on with them. I do not, want to obstruct them, but only to register my protest against at least 550 of the 615 Members of the House being constantly debarred from taking any part in the discussions on important proposals which are brought before the House. Therefore, I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley, if he must get these proposals through in one day, at least not to impose this Eleven o'clock bar, but to give reasonable time for discussion by Members on the back benches.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: I want to put a question to the Lord President of the Council. In the last two days there have been certain movements of certain goods, and I should like to ask whether, in the present exceptional circumstances, a greater number of people have been brought into what are called the secrets of the Budget than in ordinary normal times. So far as the time of the House in concerned, during the nine years that I have been here I have fought in my own way for a readjustment of the methods of the House. During the dis
cussion of that part of the De-rating Bill which applied to Scotland, I was told, six months after it happened, that I was kept in my seat for two days because of a certain article that I wrote dealing with the Government's time-wasting in this House. Whether that was true or not I do not know, and I do not care, but, if such an injustice can be carried out on a Member who desires to stand up for his individual rights and to express his individual opinions, I think there is something very unfair in any congregation of men and women that allows such a thing to take place.
6.0 p.m.
If this Government had been sent here by the people in order to carry through what is to be contained in the new Budget, there would have been some ground for argument in favour of the proposal which is now before the House; but, since the Government have not, been appointed by the votes of the people to do what is to be contained in the Budget to-morrow, they have not the right to come forward and by this means deprive those who do not agree with that Budget of their right to have the full say. With some people it may be a question of late trains, but I am not worrying about that at all. I think that anyone who becomes a Member of the House of Commons should take it as it stands, while working hard to try to make it better. In the last Session I travelled home twice. I am not complaining, but only explaining; it is part of the job that I took on. Business men do not allow such conditions to obtain in their own business. Any enlightened employer knows that, if he is going to work a man for an extra shift under pressure, he must make provision, if he is going to get the best out of that man, for his having at least two hours off between his old shift and his re-start. That is understood by enlightened employers, by those who understand by what is meant by getting the most out of the individuals they are paying—getting the most for their money. I should have thought that, in a case like this, seeing that we have not been sent here by the British voters to do this thing, that would have created such a circumstance as to dictate to the Lord President of the Council that sense of fairness which would say that, since the Opposition have not had a chance—even Members
behind him have not had a chance—to know what is to come, they may, if it is desired, have time in order to protest. No one would seek to destroy or waste the time of the House. I entirely agree with remarks that have been made about the length of speeches and the number of times certain people are allowed to speak. But that rests with the Chair and, therefore, I am not questioning it in that way. If we are really concerned with doing business, we have to get down to that organisation which will give us the biggest output of business in the shortest time. Present circumstances being abnormal, abnormal conditions ought to obtain.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Perhaps the Lord President of the Council will make it clear whether the procedure to-morrow night, beyond the fact that we shall rise at eleven, is to he identical with the procedure on other nights, whether he assumes that there will he a Budget statement, but that the real statement from the Opposition side of the House will be made, not to-morrow, but some days later according to usual precedent, if the Opposition desires; that a Resolution will he left open, and that there will be two or three days' Debate on the scheme as a whole on that Resolution, and that then, on the Report stage, there will be an opportunity of going into details.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: I am only too willing to answer, as far as I can, the right hon. Gentleman's question. He may not have had as much to do as I have in the course of my official 1ife with Budgets, and I think he is not quite clear on one or two points. The fact is that Members, in speaking to this Resolution, have, I am sure in perfect good faith, not always quite clearly understood what it is. If they will cast their minds back to the usual proceedings when a Budget is opened, the Committee stage of the Budget Resolutions is always covered by this Motion. The general practice is that the Budget Statement is made, and there is no Debate in Committee on each individual Resolution. They are always invariably put together, or one after another, on the first evening in order that they may become operative. There is one Resolution left over which is not connected with the imposition of taxation, and on that the Debate is continued on the Second Day.
How that Debate is continued depends of course on the Opposition.
The general great Debate on the whole principle takes place on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, which cannot come in until after the Report of the Resolution. This makes no alteration at all in the ordinary procedure of the first two days of the Committee stage of the Budget Resolutions. It is true that we have put in the hour of eleven, but in my experience it is very rare that we go beyond that hour on that night. On the Tuesday, or whatever day is given for the Second Reading, I cannot yet say because it has not been settled how long the Debate may go on, but there will be that Second Day.
Beyond that it is impossible to say what time will he given, because the Government always have to judge by what is in the Budget, and by the reception of the Budget, and no Government can say before they introduce a Budget how long they expect to he in getting it through or what time they will give. Indeed, if one said anything on that subject, people might make deductions from it probably false, as to what was in the Budget or what the length of it was. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who always contributes interestingly and usefully to our discussions, wanted to know how many Resolutions there were. That is a question that I do not feel at liberty to answer. He gave us one valuable piece of information, that he has a balance at the bank, and I congratulate him most warmly on it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the Second Day's proceedings, is it intended to closure them at eleven also, or will the usual Ways and Means practice be observed?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot give a pledge now. It will be announced in the business to-morrow. I cannot anticipate what the Prime Minister will say, but, when the business for Tuesday is announced, that question may legitimately be asked. I repeat that there is nothing in this Motion that is intended in any way to alter the customary procedure of the first two days of the Committee stage of Budget Resolutions.

Ordered,
That the Committee stage of the Resolutions, with the exception of the last Resolution, to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means on Thursday, 10th September, 1931, shall be brought to a conclusion on that day, and at Eleven of the clock the Chairman shall, if such proceedings have not previously been brought to a conclusion, forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution then under discussion and shall then forthwith put the Question in respect of each subsequent Resolution, except the last Resolution, and shall immediately report the Resolutions to the House without Question put, and that the proceedings under this Order shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Grant for Public Works.)

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out the word "thirty," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty."
After the controversy in which we have been engaged for the last two days, this is a Bill which, I am sure, will commend itself to all sides of the House. It was introduced by the preceding Government and obtained its Second Reading and we now proceed to the Committee stage. There is only this one Amendment down in my name, which does not raise any question of principle, and I am sure the late President of the Board of Trade will agree that in the recent past it has been found that no sum greater than £20,000,000 was issued in fact within the period of 12 months. The Amendment does not in any way limit the sum that has been entrusted to the care of the Public Works Loans Board in previous years. Furthermore, the sum of £30,000,000, which was suggested in the summer when the Bill came up, was for a period of 13 months. Now that a period of some months has elapsed since that time, it is quite reasonable that a corresponding reduction should be made. This does not in any way fetter the discretion of the House. It is not an Annual Bill
which cannot be brought in again. It merely indicates that, at the period when this sum has been exhausted, the expenditure here authorised will be again reviewed by the House and, with this explanation, I hope it will be possible for the House to assent to the Amendment.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is, I am afraid, rather optimistic in expecting that we shall welcome a proposal to reduce the Public Works Loans Fund by £10,000,000 and that we shall welcome it with the paucity of information which he was good enough to give in his very meagre opening speech. I do not wish to discuss at this moment the procedure of the Public Works Loans Fund. Other hon. Members will deal with that point. I desire to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman this specific question broadly relating to distressed or necessitous local authorities and their relationship to the Public Works Loans Fund as it will be depleted if this Amendment is carried. When the borrowing powers are reduced by £10,000,000, what effect will that have upon necessitous areas which are compelled to come to the fund for assistance if they desire to proceed with public works? Already these necessitous areas are in a state of considerable apprehension and perturbation. There was a conference this week addressed by the Minister of Health, and I have before me a summary of what that conference was told. For example, the conference was informed that at and after the beginning of November next all persons presently in receipt of transitional benefit were to be subjected to a poor law destitution test and that local authorities would be asked to make up the difference between the benefit that would he paid on a reduced scale and the present Poor Law destitution rate.

Major ELLIOT: I do not know how far this is relevant to the subject of the. Debate now. It is a discussion in advance of proposals not so far made before the House and which, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, do not in any way correspond with the statement that has been given.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I do not, I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, intend to discuss the merits or demerits of these
proposals. I recognise that it would be completely out of order to discuss them, but I submit that I shall be within the rules of order if I ask for the attention of the Committee to the fact that local authorities, particularly in distressed areas, may he put into a very embarrassing financial position if £10,000,000 is deducted, as is now proposed, from the Public Works Loans Fund. I am putting it no higher than that, and I am suggesting that it is within the knowledge of these authorities now that proposals are being discussed, that proposals are being mooted under which 500,000 persons presently in receipt of transitional benefit from a national fund are henceforth to be transferred in regard to part of their maintenance to the burden of the local authorities.

Major ELLIOT: I really do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot admit for one moment the accuracy of that statement and therefore the strength of the argument which is based upon it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I should be delighted to have a specific repudiation from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I will put what I have to say in the form of questions. Was there a conference held on Monday of this week at the Department of Health? Was that conference addressed by the Minister of Health? Did he put proposals before the conference to the effect that 500,000 persons presently in receipt of transitional benefit are to be subjected—

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to refer to the expectation of local authorities requiring extra borrowing powers, but I do not think he is entitled to ask the hon. and gallant Member to tell him details of the Government's policy on various questions. It would not be in order.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I certainly bow to your Ruling. I put to you for your consideration the question whether I am not in order on a, proposal to reduce—for that is what it amounts to—the borrowing powers of the Local Loans Fund from the National Debt Commissioners to the extent of £10,000,000, in asking if necessitous areas in this country, where the bulk of the unemployed poor reside, are not entitled to feel apprehensive at these proposals. [Interruption.] I do
not wish to put forward obstruction in the slightest, but merely desire to ask for information in proper form. If the Chair holds that I ought not to put specific and detailed questions, I shall not attempt to do so. I merely say that to the best of my information and belief—and I should be glad to have a specific denial of it—500,000 persons presently in receipt of transitional benefit are to be subjected to a means test or a Poor Law destitution test after the beginning of November next, and that, in part, the expense of their maintenance thereafter will fall upon the necessitous areas and therefore upon the rates. I beg the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to this fact. Our heavy industries lie in most of these necessitous areas, and, if you subject these heavy industries, as you may, to heavy local rating burdens, you swill absolutely prevent any possibility of their industrial or economic recovery.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that I can make clear to the right hon. Gentleman my view upon it. He is entitled to refer to expectations that these local authorities will require to borrow more money, but he is not entitled to discuss the merits or demerits of the Measures, or possible Measures, which may have to be taken.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I have put my point, and I will not further enlarge upon the merits or demerits of the proposal. I confine myself to asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment for a public explanation. He declared that he felt that there would be general agreement that there should he a reduction of £10,000,000 in this fund. I think he said that. I ask him for what purpose this reduction of £10,000,000 is to be made, and whether it is in relation to proposals laid before representatives of the County Councils' Association and the London County Council on Monday of this week?

Mr. EDE: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Major ELLIOT: I am willing to answer. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. If hon. Members opposite desire to speak, I will give way to them, but, if the Committee desire me to answer the specific questions now, I shall be
most glad to do so. The proposal does not mean a limiting of this fund. The proposal simply means that the amount which is being entrusted by the House to the Public Works Loans Board may be reviewed at a shorter time than otherwise would have been the case. There is no limitation of any kind or description upon the fund, save that it will come up for review at a shorter time. The proposals are not in any way connected with any proposals which have been made for transitional benefit, for the administration of transitional benefit, or for anything arising out of the administration of transitional benefit.
I am sure that hon. and right lion. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench who are deeply versed in local administration will admit that loans from the Public Works Loans Board are only granted by the Board, which is not in any way subject to the control of this House, and only granted, on economically sound propositions, for public works which can pay, in principal and interest, according to the strictest actuarial considerations. This has always been the consideration under which the money has been issued, and no change of any kind is proposed. Furthermore, as I have said, no larger sum than this has been issued, even in recent previous years. The sum which would have run us, in normal times, for a full year is actually going to run for less than a full year. It is, therefore, really to bring the expenditure more closely under the review of the House, and is purely an accounting and book-keeping piece of administration, and it is for that purpose that I have moved to insert the word "twenty" instead of "thirty." I ask the Committee to accept the assurance that it does not in any way deter public authorities or the Public Works Loans Board or the discretion of this House in subsequently dealing with this sum.

Mr. EDE: I am astonished to see the Order Paper relating to this Bill to-day, because I hold in my hand the Order Paper as it related to the Bill when the House adjourned on the 31st July. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite had filled two pages of the Order Paper with Amendments. I saw the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) here just now. He had an Amendment down. The hon. Member for Farnham
(Mr. A. M. Samuel) was responsible for several Amendments. They have disappeared. I notice that he is apparently going to speak. I hope that we shall find that a change of situation does not mean a change of heart and that he is still going to advocate the things he was going to advocate on the 20th October. The present Minister of Health was responsible for an Amendment similar to tic one now in front of us.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member should confine his remarks to the specific Amendments upon the Paper.

Mr. EDE: I was going to do so. I do not desire to transgress your Ruling, and I was coming to that as rapidly as I could. The present Minister of Health, the hon. Member for Farnham, the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid), the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward), the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) and the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) had given notice of an Amendment to leave out "thirty" in order to insert, not "twenty," but "fifteen." Between the 31st July and the time when the present Amendment was placed upon the Order Paper their Amendments disappeared. The Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken its place. I see the President of the Board of Education there. The county councils get their loans for schools out of this Fund. Is one reason for the reduction made by the present Government from "thirty" to "twenty," the circular which the right hon. Gentleman issued last week notifying local authorities that, instead of getting a 50 per cent. grant towards new buildings, all new buildings, which the right hon. Gentleman himself, speaking from that seat, urged them to get on with in December, 1929, should be stopped? Is it because those buildings will be shut down and hundreds and thousands of men will be thrown out of work in the building trade, that the Government now think that they can do with £10,000,000 less? I saw the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Secretary of State for the Colonies there just now. He is one of those who has been a Member of both Governments, and whether he will be a Member of the next Government is a matter for
prophecy. I am betting that he will not. [Interruption.] Oh, no. At any rate, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the welsher's best, friend, made it legal again.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's remark is not relevant to the discussion.

Mr. EDE: I was going to appeal to you, Sir Dennis, as to whether I was interrupting the hon. Member or whether he was interrupting me. The financial control of the Government is with the same Chancellor of the Exchequer, although, as I pointed out yesterday, the hon. and gallant Member who is now Financial Secretary to the Treasury has mounted guard over the prisoner. Is it part of the terms that the policy of the President of the Board of Education, which was laid down in 1929, is to be reversed and that these loans are not to be required for the Public Works Loans Board? This fund represents for the coming winter an opportunity very largely for the building trade and other trades concerned with public works, for the navvies and other so-called unskilled workers, their chance of getting employment.

Mr. EGAN: Work on the roads.

Mr. EDE: My hon. Friend, who has had much experience of local government, mentions the roads. This Bill is a test whether the Government really intend to help the local authorities to deal with the coming winter and with the appalling distress which they do not hold out the slightest hope of averting from falling upon the working classes. They have no idea of the number of men for whom it will be necessary to provide through these public works. The £20,000,000 to which they propose to limit the Bill, is absolutely useless. This represents the first act of surrender to hopelessness and to the policy of letting men eat their hearts and souls out in idleness.
I hope that the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member will be resisted. The Minister of Health has to be informed on these matters, because the local authorities cannot get any loans unless they have obtained his sanction. When they go to the Public Works Loans Board, the first question that is put to them is, "Have you obtained the sanction of the Minister of Health?" On the
31st July the Minister of Health thought that £15,000,000 was enough. He sprang £5,000,000 however. I would ask the Members of the Liberal party what comes of the £250,000,000 loan which they said was necessary to deal with this question. I would appeal to the hon. Members for Cornwall. I am afraid that there is only one Cornish Member left outside the Government who can express a free view in this House. There are five Members for Cornwall—

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member suggest that the £250,000,000 is to be advanced by the Public Works Loans Board?

Mr. EDE: No. I was pointing out that if the sum of £250,000,000 was required, how much more so the miserable £30,000,000 that was proposed originally in this Bill. I would appeal to the Members for Cornwall, three of whom are in the Government. The Paymaster-General, who is a Cornish Member, told us only a few weeks ago—

Lord HUGH CECIL: On a point of Order. May I ask for an instruction as to what is in order on this Bill. As far as I can follow the hon. Member's speech, every word that he has said is out of order. If we look at the very elaborate memorandum that was prepared by the hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite, we find reference to Stonehaven and other places, and various advances under the agricultural credits, but nothing whatever about anything of which the hon. Member has been speaking. I should like a Ruling as to what is in order.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Noble Lord was here some time ago when I gave a Ruling. I drew a distinction between the references to matters which might require the raising of certain sums from the Public Works Loans Board and to a discussion of the merits of those particular matters for which money was to he voted. Strictly, upon this Amendment the only thing that can be discussed is whether any inconvenience would be caused by limiting the amount.

Mr. EDE: I have read the Order Paper, and what it says is that the Financial Secretary is moving to leave
out "thirty" in order to insert "twenty" as the number of millions that may be raised under this Bill. The points raised by the Noble Lord might perhaps be discussed on the question that certain other Clauses stand part. I am trying to demonstrate as well as I can that £20,000,000 is not sufficient, and I am rather surprised that so profound a champion, usually, of the rights of private Members as the Noble Lord should have interrupted me without having made himself acquainted with the Amendment on which I was speaking.

Lord H. CECIL: I am acquainted with the Bill, but the hon. Member does not show any signs of acquaintance with the Bill.

Mr. EDE: I do not desire to bandy words with the representative of the home of lost causes. I should have thought that one so senior to me would know that on the Amendment we are only allowed to discuss the Amendment and not the Bill. I accept the Ruling of the Chair rather than that of the Noble Lord, and I hope that I may now be allowed to make an appeal to those hon. Members of the Liberal party, who said that public works of huge magnitude should be undertaken, although one of them has issued his first circular as President of the Board of Education to stop those works. I hope those hon. Members will on this occasion show that independence which the present Financial Secretary urged them to show only a few weeks ago. Independence is as much a virtue on that side of the House to-day as it was when hon. Members opposite were over here. T am sure that the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), in whose constituency I was the other day, where unemployment is rife and where the need for public works is great, will exercise his influence—I do not know whether the rumour in to-day's "Times" is correct and that he is to have the gag applied to him—so that we may have one good vote from Cornwall. Otherwise, the only independent Liberal Member left to Cornwall will he the Member for the Scilly Isle.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: The Amendment is simply that the amount is to be limited to £20,000,000 instead of £30,000,000. The hon. Mem-
ber for West Leicester (Mr. PethickLawrence) must know that his two colleagues who have been speaking on this matter are climbing up the wrong tree. This Bill does not deal with policy, but with a piece of financial machinery—[Interruption.] The late Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I have held the same position, and I think he will bear out what I have to say. Let me read what, he said in the House on the 27th June, 1930. On the last occasion we had put down certain Amendments to the Bill, not for hostile reasons but with a view to raising certain points. He said, and it is exactly the answer which fits the complaint that has been raised by hon. Members opposite:
With regard to the amount of £30,000,000 there is nothing really limited. Another Public Works Loans Bill can be brought in at any time. There is no specific date to which this £30,000,000 runs. The amount brought in to any one Bill can run until the next Bill has been introduced, and, if the estimate which has been made, that this sum would probably last until the summer of next year, proved to be unfounded, and the money was required before that date, it would be perfectly possible, as has been done on previous occasions, to bring in a, second Bill earlier than was anticipated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1930; Col. 1565, Vol. 240.]
I do not think I need add a single word to that statement. Anything which my hon. and gallant Friend the present Financial Secretary has said is rendered almost watertight and cast iron by that speech of the late Financial Secretary.

Mr. BENSON: The speech that we have just heard is absolutely correct. The £20,000,000 put down is no more a limitation of the amount that may be spent than was the original figure of £30,000,000 which is in the Bill. As soon as the maximum sum which has been allowed to the Public Works Loans Commissioners is finished, it is essential that another Bill should be introduced in order to give further financial powers. What I want to know is, why on earth have the Government taken the trouble to move the Amendment. If the £30,000,000 is no limitation and the £20,000,000 is no limitation, why are they wasting the time of the House discussing whether we shall put a mere token figure into the Bill.
Although it is perfectly true that, £30,000,000 or £20,000,000 would be merely a token Vote the fact that the Government have thought it necessary to reduce the figure can be due only to two causes. In the first place, it may be an indication of policy; it may be an indication to the Public Works Loans Commissioners to go slow; it may be an indication that they must refuse loans to local authorities. If that is so I shall have something to say about it. Alternatively, it may be nothing but a piece of window-dressing. If it is window-dressing, if it means nothing, if there is to be no change of policy, if the Public Works Loans Commissioners will be allowed to lend as readily in the future as in the past, then it is a very shoddy piece of window-dressing. The Public Works Loans Commissioners in the supply of comparatively cheap money to local authorities are performing a very important function in our community, and if there is the idea of giving the world the impression that this Government is going to economise ruthlessly and we start not by cutting luxuries, but by cutting down the capital development in the country we may succeed in impressing the world with our desire for economy, but we certainly shall not impress it by our wisdom.
There are various methods of financing the schemes of local authorities. There are the unemployment grants, and in that matter, so far as this side of the Committee is concerned, I am rather a heretic. I have on occasion opposed the policy of what I consider to be shoveling out money on unemployment schemes when the schemes themselves were not immediately necessary.

The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the question now before the Committee.

Mr. BENSON: The point I want to make is that whilst I was perfectly willing to oppose unemployment grants for schemes for unnecessary work, the money under this Bill is not for unnecessary work or for work which has been accelerated, but for work which is immediately necessary for local authorities. The Bill exists for the purpose of providing cheap money in order that local authorities may carry out their work, cheaply. If this proposal means, as I
am afraid it does, an indication of policy it means either that immediately necessary work is going to be held up, that local authorities will have to curtail work which is socially requisite at the moment, or that they will have to carry out that work and get the money they require in the open market when they will have to pay a higher percentage than they do to the Public Works Loans Commissioners.
That is essentially false economy. We are not economising if we compel small local authorities without any great financial backing, or authorities in distressed areas, to get their money in the open market and pay a higher rate than they do to the Public Works Loans Commissioners, we are merely increasing the amount of money which will go into the pockets of the rentiers. Surely that is not what the Government desire; at any rate, I do not think they would do it quite so openly and so brutally. I hope the Financial Secretary will tell us whether this is a piece of very poorly conceived window-dressing or whether it is really a definite change in policy; that the Government does propose to curtail the amount of money which local authorities may borrow from the Public Works Loans Commissioners and thus force wretched local authorities to go into the open market and pay whatever rates of interest tiny are compelled to pay.

Mr. HARRIS: The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) made a very effective quotation from a speech of the late Financial Secretary, but there is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the new Financial Secretary, and it is an Amendment which requires some explanation. I heard his speech in proposing the Amendment and knowing his clear mind I felt that it was not quite so clear as one would expect from him. If this is to be the limit of borrowing, for financial reasons, it is far better to tell the Committee and to take the country into our confidence. We are living in difficult times. There is a financial crisis and the way to get legislation through Committee is not by mystery but by frankness. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that he should make quite clear the policy of the Government. If it is only a matter of accountancy and machinery, and that there is no other purpose in it, let him make it quite
clear; but if there is to be a limit on the powers of borrowing on the part of local authorities from this very useful source it should be clearly indicated to the Committee. As a good beginning in his new office I hope the hon. and gallant Member will practise frankness.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) in his observations except to say this, that I hope it is the beginning of a Liberal revolt against the Government. The hon. Member was one of the most effective opponents of the last Coalition and I still have hopes of him. Let this fact be noted, that the first executive act of the present Government is to add £20,000,000 to the National Debt. I see the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) in his place. I have before me the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 13th July of this year, and the Noble Lord on that occasion said that we were discussing the addition of £30,000,000 to our debt. The Noble Lord, who is in the higher councils of the Conservative party and I believe also holds an important position in the financial life of the country, could not swallow the £30,000,000. He and his new friends the Minister for Education, the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman), the right hon. Member for Cam-borne (Mr. Leif Jones) could not swallow the addition of £30,000,000 to the National Debt, it was too much. It was denounced at one o'clock in the morning, but since then we have had a crisis, a flight from the £, the City has been disturbed, and the first executive act of the new Government is to add £20,000,000 to the National Debt. What humbug there is in this economy programme! It is mere camouflage for the office hungry. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Nottingham South (Mr. Knight) one of the pioneers of the Labour movement who has parted with his friends on the question of economy is going to vote for the addition of £20,000,000 to the public debt—

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: If the hon. and gallant Member is referring to me may I say that he is usually inaccurate but profoundly inaccurate on this occasion?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No economist can vote for this Bill. We are
going to oppose the Amendment because we do not stand for this reduction. I happen to know that in Cornwall the harbours of the fishermen are in a scandalous condition: and one of the uses to which this £30,000,000 was to be put was the reconditioning of those harbours. They are dangerous, and the lives of fishermen may be lost in the case of storms.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is discussing matters which I have already told him Cannot be discussed on this Motion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: One of the uses of this money is to provide employment where it is badly wanted, and while we can understand the position of Conservative Members it is impossible to understand the position of Liberal Members, who during the last Election made this the main plan in their programme to reduce unemployment, are going to vote for a reduction of £10,000,000 worth of work. The constituents of the two hon. Members for Bethnal Green and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. F. Brown) will be queuing up in the winter in their ragged clothes—

Mr. E. BROWN: Will the hon. and gallant Member give way?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member has got to learn the truth. He is not going to get away with the betrayal of his principles. His constituents as a result of his vote to-night will be shivering in the queues in Leith—

Mr. BROWN: You will not be shivering in a queue.

7.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am not so sure. It depends upon what queues. If the hon. Member for Leith is to he in the new dictatorship, I may be there. That is what we are coming to by this policy. I must refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Farnbam (Mr. A. M. Samuel). I quote, not from the copy of the OFFICIAl REPORT from which he quoted, but from one of a few weeks ago. This is what he said about this Bill, referring to the Public Works policy of the late Government:
The whole of their public works policy front the beginning of their administration, in spite of their prophecies, has
been a ghastly and unrelieved failure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1931; col. 208, Vol. 255.]
That is the sort of talk, conning from a great financial and business authority, that was eagerly taken up by our creditors abroad, and was part of that propaganda which has done us so much harm. To-night, can he vote with a clear conscience for a reduction of this sum from £30,000,000 to £20,000,000? This was a "ghastly and unrelieved failure" on 13th July; on the 9th September it is respectable Conservative policy. The hon. Gentleman, who ought to have known better, at one o'clock in the morning on the 13th July denounced the policy of advancing Public Works by this Public Works Loans Bill. He should not now he voting for a reduction of £10,000,000; he should be voting for a reduction of the whole £30,000,000.

Major ELLIOT: I suppose the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that he is quoting the wrong financial authority. He is attributing to my hon. Friend statements which he never made.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg your pardon. That denunciation was not made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham. I am quite wrong. The hon. Member for Farnham said nothing of the kind. What he said was that he so objected to the Bill that he would like to denounce it for three quarters of an hour, but that at that hour of the morning he would not do so. What I quoted was said by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord Percy) who to-night is going to provide £20.000,000 for a policy which he denounced as very iniquitous when it was £30,000,000. The Noble Lord does not deny it. He is there, and I will be glad to hear his defence.
What have I to say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? I do not want to embarrass him. I know his views on many of these questions of finance. They are not the orthodox Conservative views. They have frightened his new chief as much as some of the views of my hon. Friends have frightened him. He actually believes in this. He believes it is right, in times of financial stress and had trade, to give men useful employment, rather than have them idle in the
market-place. He knows that that is true, because he has said so from these benches many a time when he was in opposition. He is going to cut down one third of this expenditure on useful work, which he declared just now has only been expended on financially sound schemes, passed by a committee of bankers under the chairmanship of, I believe, Lord Hunsdon, and not in any way to be questioned.
These schemes were Conservative in the first place, and the appointments were re-affirmed by the present financial leader of the Conservative party, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is not the point. Every one acknowledges, except for a few financial purists like the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings, that there has been no misuse of these funds. The Commissioners have done useful work, and have added to the real wealth of the country. I do not refer to the fictitious credit of the money-lending machinery, but to real works, such as harbours. Useful public work of that kind has been promoted under the most stringent conditions. It was one of the great constructive plans that the late Government brought into operation. Their act now is to cut it down. They are getting the worst of both worlds. First of all, they are adding to the National Debt, and by reducing this amount they are going to throw idle men who might have been usefully employed. I cannot congratulate them. I am sorry for those hon. Members who fought the last election on the Liberal programme and now find themselves compelled to support this proposal of the Government.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I would like to endorse the appeal that has been made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and by the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). If this is an indication of a change of policy, it arouses great fear and apprehension in a county like Glamorganshire, which is already submerged, and which has cause to be grateful to this House and to the late Government for the Measures which they took to assist the county during the last few years. During the last two years especially, efforts have been made to relieve some of the poverty and privation that
were endured. I would like the Committee to realise that for a number of years Glamorganshire has carried, in the administrative county alone, over 7,000 people unemployed, and that, for the last three years, up to March, 1930, there were in that county over 17,000 people on transitional benefit. With the assistance that has been given, we have been able to find employment through relief works for a very large number of our unemployed. On the 31st July of this year, no less than 3,750 men, mainly on transitional benefit, were taken off the list and transferred to employment.
I want to supplement the appeal that is made that. the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) too, should assure us that there will be no injury for us in the present proposal and that it is not going to make it much more difficult for us to get money from the Public Works Loans Board, now that only £20,000,000 is to be distributed all over England and Wales, than if the sum had been earmarked as before. We want to be sure that, when we put our claims forward, we shall not find it more difficult than we have found it in the past. We have been doing our best under great difficulties. I appeal and pray that the Committee will not make it more difficult for us to sustain our population in the future than has been the case in the past.

Mr. MARLEY: I want to make a definite appeal to my lion. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to withdraw his Amendment. He told us, in the very brief speech which he made, that there was no indication of policy in this reduction, but that it was merely carrying on what had been done for years. It was explained, I believe by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) that this money is applied to very useful work, and that the distribution of the money is very carefully supervised. The distribution of the money and the advancing of loans is very carefully scrutinised by the Board, which, so far as I know, was appointed chiefly by right hon. Gentlemen now in office on the other side of the House. The Labour Government agreed more or less to the Conservative Board en bloc, but the original appointments were made by Conservative and previous Liberal Governments.
Can you trust these men now carefully to scrutinise the advancement of £30,000,000, or is the Amendment an indication of policy?
I want to ask the Financial Secretary that definite question. Is it a hint, a very broad hint, to the Board that in future they have to guard carefully this fund? If that is so, we have here the beginning of economies which the Prime Minister himself has asked county councils not to proceed with. The Prime Minister warned county councils, a few days after he took office, that there was no need for the appointing of economy committees and for a panic in county council administration. Neither the county councils nor the local councils have changed their political complexion and they are not likely to rush into extravagant expenditure because of a national emergency. They are not suddenly likely to evolve great schemes, such as the Liberal party brought forward at the last Election. They have been warned off that by the Conservative party, and now they have been warned off by the Liberals on the other side of the House, who are now saying that these public works cannot be afforded.
We have this indication to-day that no more money has to be advanced than the £20,000,000 voted for in the Bill. His Majesty's late Government thought that £30,000,000 was necessary to tide us over this winter. Has anything occurred to make His Majesty's present Government change their minds? Is there arty reason to believe that the local authorities will not be able to use the £30,000,000 if it is voted? If they are able to use £30,000,000, does the Financial Secretary believe that the men who are in charge of the granting of the loans cannot be trusted? If that be so, then they ought to be sacked. If he cannot trust those people with the granting of the loans, let him get rid of them; if he can, why cut down the figure by £10,000,000? There is no need to do it. You have very good, careful watch dogs. You have a very much better watch dog in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer than you have had before.
The Minister of Health is not likely to be too extravagant so far as the local authorities are concerned. No grant is to be issued out of this Public Works Loans Fund unless the Minister of Health previously sanctions it. Is the Finan-
cial Secretary suggesting that the present Minister of Health is going to be extravagant in doling out money to local authorities? Does anything in the past history of that Minister's administration lead him to that conclusion? No. The only conclusion that any sensible and reasonable person can draw is that, apart from going round and definitely instructing the Board, which is an outside body that has been entrusted with responsibility, this is the biggest hint chat could be given to that Board to cut down public works. If that is so, there ought to be a first-class fight in this House now, and with the hon. Member for Lcith (Mr. E. Brown) if he wants it.
One thing should be made perfectly clear. We are facing a very dangerous winter. We were told on the authority of the late Government, and we are told by the present Government that there will probably be £3,000,000 unemployed by Christmas. At the same time the Government are not going to increase the amount of loans for public works. I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to say definitely that the Minister of Health did not mean anything when he met that conference and told them that 500,000 was going to be put off the Employment Exchanges. I want him to say that this is not a change in policy on the part of the Government. I want him to say that anyone who can show to the Public Works Loans Board that there are reasonable works that could be done to employ people will not he refused a grant. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give a pledge that if it can be shown by any Member of this House that work is being held up because of refusals of loans, the hon. and gallant. Member will do his utmost to get a fresh Bill introduced for extending the borrowing powers.
Can we have a promise that no work will he held up when the Public Works Loans Board advises that it, should be done? Such assurances would relieve not only Members of this House, but members of county and urban authorities who are faced with the task of finding useful work. I hope that Members of the Liberal party will support our request. The Board is capable of supervising the expenditure of the money and of seeing that there is no extravagance. Then why not trust the Board with the £30,000,000?
Why not withdraw even the suspicion that there is any change of policy. The merest hint as to the Government's desire to cut down expenditure is all that is wanted in certain quarters, and immediately expenditure is cut down. I hope that the Financial Secretary will give us the assurance that so far as he is concerned he would resign from the Government rather than continue in the control of an inadequate fund for the employment of men on useful public works during the winter.

Mr. HOFFMAN: I would add my plea to that of my hon. Friend who has just spoken. It is only a few months since the nation was faced with such an enormous crisis in connection with unemployment that all local authorities were called together here in London and asked to speed up all their public works, and to develop works wherever they could, in order to provide employment during the winter. The Prime Minister himself called that conference, and Members on these benches and on the Liberal benches applauded the fact that it was held. I have been spoken to about it by Members of local authorities who are certainly not Labour members, and who cannot now understand why the hint should now go out that all these works should be cut down. Already there is the impression that they should be cut down. I am very alarmed at the prospect this winter. In the industrial areas, which are the hardest hit, and have been the hardest hit for five or six years, if the hint goes out that all capital expenditure is to be cut down, I am afraid that the local police forces will have to be considerably increased during the winter months. I am afraid that there will be enormous difficulties apart from enormous suffering.
Can we afford to neglect our capital expenditure? Can we afford to go on letting our harbours silt up and our land get more waterloggged than it is? Surely in encouraging work of this kind we are adding to national values, adding to real wealth. It is not real economy to stop this kind of work. You may take it out of the workers for a little while, but the history of civilisation shows that you will reap what you have sown, and that every depression of
human standards rebounds against the privileged few in every country where it has operated. If this Bill is intended as a hint let it be altered. Already wages are being attacked, because it is suggested that there is need for economy. That is not merely the case in Government Departments. I have had brought to my notice this morning the fact that in establishments in London the workers have been told already that wages should be cut by 10 per cent. because the King has set an example.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going far beyond the Amendment that is before the Committee.

Mr. HOFFMAN: I am very anxious not to get out of order, but I wanted to show that in every area this panicky way of dealing with the matter, instead of facing the situation coolly and calmly, is not going to do any good to the nation. I sincerely hope that there will be reconsideration of the matter before it is too late.

Major ELLIOT: If I can, let me make it clear to the Committee what is the position of this fund. The fact is that for some years past the sum annually placed by the Public Works Loans Board has been of the order of £20,000,000, or less than £20,000,000, precisely the sum which the Committee is being asked to authorise for the Board to-night.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: How much has the Board used in those past years?

Major ELLIOT: It would be impossible to answer without notice.

Mr. MARLEY: Has the £20,000,000 been fully used in past years, or was there a balance left over?

Major ELLIOT: There is still nearly £10,000,000 in the fund. In our care for the adequate supply of funds during the few months immediately ahead it would have been unnecessary for us to come before this Committee at all and to ask for a Vote. That is the best answer I can give to the hon. Member who raised the point. In every one of the past years there has been a considerable sum of money which the Commissioners were authorised to lend, but which in fact they did not lend. So it
would seem unreasonable and a piece of window-dressing if we were to ask now for £30,000,000, which the Commissioners are not likely to spend in the immediate future. The suggestion has been made that there has been some change of policy put forward to the local authorities. I am anxious to respond to the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan), who as the representative of a considerable local authority is anxious to find out exactly how the matter stands. I say again that for some years past the money annually issued by this fund has been £20,000,000. The sum which was suggested by the Labour Government when the Bill was brought before the House in July was to run from July to the end of July, 1932. That period of 73 months has been reduced to a probable In months and it is reasonable that we should introduce a figure which as nearly as possible will represent the demand likely to be made on the fund in the future.
Several questions have been asked as to whether this proposal would make it more difficult fur the local authorities. I do not see any reason why it should. These are business propositions, put up to a business board consisting very largely of bankers, and bankers to whom in the past some Members opposite have taken vehement exception. If they think that., in view of the difficult situation, a wave of extravagance is likely to overtake Lord Hunsdon and his colleagues, I would ask them to disabuse their minds on the point. The business propositions will come up to this business hoard in the future as in the past, and if those concerned can justify the propositions money will be issued for them in the future as in the past. We are attempting to adopt a more accurate system of dealing with that national account than would be the voting of a sum of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 more than is drawn upon in the course of the year. In that action I am sure Members in every quarter of the House will agree. I have here numerous examples of the speeches of previous Financial Secretaries on the subject of this very hardy annual.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Financial Secretary has given us an explanation with his accustomed adroitness endeavouring to cover over the
weak points in his case, but I tell him straight away that while his explanation may be good enough for some of his colleagues on the Front Treasury Bench, it certainly is not good enough for me, and I do not think it will be good enough for those who sit behind me. I hope that there are some Liberals who, even though they are on the Government side of the House, will find out to what his defence really amounts. The hon. and gallant. Gentleman endeavoured to persuade us that in making this change he was doing nothing at all, but the question obviously arises why, then, should he do it? In order to justify himself, the hon. and gallant Member, I have no doubt accidently, mis-stated the position. He said that it was a mistake for us to vote more money than was actually required. If the object of the Bill were to vote money; if this were an Estimate: if he were able to say that an Estimate of £30,000,000 had been made in June, _but that three months had now elapsed, and he found that in the changed circumstances £20,000,000 was enough, and if we were in fact voting that money, then there would he a great deal in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. But this is not a Vote. Hon. Members will see that the Bill does not vote a sum of money. What it says is this:
There may he issued by the National Debt Commissioners for the purposes of local loans by the Public Works Loans Commissioners any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole the sum of thirty million pounds.
If the hon. and gallant Member's version of the policy behind that proposal is correct, what difference, does it make whether the sum is changed to £20,000,000 or whether £30,000,000 remains in the Bill. Why waste the time of the Committee—as obviously this is a matter likely to raise considerable controversy— there really is no difference at all between the Bill as it stands and the Bill as he proposes to amend it? What, is the real distinction? It is that the Financial Secretary, representing the Government of the day, has come to this Committee and asked for an Amendment to this Bill and if that Amendment be carried, it will then go out to the country that the Government have changed the Public Works Loans Bill and have reduced the amount that the Public Works Loans Commissioners are expected to
spend from £30,000,000 to £20,000,000. I know that the hon. and gallant Member can introduce another Bill next week if he likes, but though that may be true, he knows as well as I do that it is the gesture in these matters that counts, and this is a gesture to the local authorities and the Public Works Loans Commissioners and it is with the intention of making that gesture that this Amendment has been proposed.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he fixed the sum of £30,000,000? Why did he not put in a sum of £50,000,000 instead of £30,000,000?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I put in a figure which I thought was a reasonable estimate of the expenditure which might. be expected over the period in question. The question is, why change it as proposed? It is one thing to put in a certain figure and quite another thing deliberately to take up the time of Parliament in altering it, on the ground that whatever figure may be fixed in the first instance, it is perfectly well known that it can subsequently be modified by a further Act. But to come down to the Committee and to seek to change that figure—that is not done for nothing. It. must he done with the intention of having a certain change of attitude and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cam-borne (Mr. Leif Jones), who makes such admirable contributions to our Debates, is in this matter at variance with his hon. Friend who pointed out just now that either this proposal had a meaning or it had none. If it has no meaning, why does the hon. and gallant Gentleman make the proposal? But I suggest that it has a meaning and that. it is to be taken as a gesture, almost as an instruction to the local authorities and to the Public Works Loans Commissioners that less money is to be spent on capital expenditure.

Mr. SCOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, in point of fact, in his experience last year any more than £20,000,000 was actually spent?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot charge my memory on that point, but it is quite irrelevant. The question here is, why make the change in the Bill? I say that the change is clearly for the
purpose of making a gesture. In my opinion, which I think is the opinion generally held on this side of the House, and I believe it is an opinion held in the country, not only among those who take our point of view, but among others, that is what it means. If so, I wish to ask if this cutting-down of the expenditure of local authorities is part of the original bargain that the Government have made at the instruction of others outside this country. It is no good for the hon. and gallant Member to try to run away from the point. We have been told quite frankly from the Front Bench that certain changes have to be made in order to satisfy certain opinions in other parts of the world. Is this change part of that bargain or is it not? If it is, then I ask where are we going to stop?
Are we to take our policy in this way not merely with regard to national expenditure and the Budget, but also with regard to the actions of local authorities? Are we to stop there or go still further? Has all this been prearranged for us by the terms under which we have obtained a loan? If it has not been so prearranged, if it is not part of the original bargain, why is it being done? Is it being done from a spirit of general subservience and is it the case that while we are making all these alterations in our internal affairs, we have to do every conceivable thing to those who are good enough to lend this money to us? This alteration is the first fruits of the Government policy. It. is contrary to the traditions of this country and I hope that the Committee will vote against it.

Mr. LEIF JONES: The hon. Gentleman failed to satisfy me in regard to the original figure of £30,000,000. I understand that when he brought in the Bill, he estimated that the £30,000,000 would be sufficient for 13 months.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No, the right hon. Gentleman must not assume that at all. I brought in the figure of £30,000,000 as a reasonable figure for expenditure by the local authorities, but how long it was to last was not filially decided—[Laughter]. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh, but it is the fact that there was not any fixed date. It was assumed that £30,000,000 would be enough to go on with.

Mr. LEIF JONES: The hon. Gentleman will admit that he must have had some period in his mind within which that £30,000,000 would be expended, and at the end of which it would become necessary to have another Bill, and in the Debate I think it was mentioned that that period was about 13 months. I understand that the figure of £20,000,000 is what the Government estimate will probably be spent, assuming that there is another Loans Bill in the spring or early summer of next year. T put it to the hon. Gentleman that £20,000,000 for nine months is very much the same figure as £30,000,000 for 13 months. I accept the explanation of the Government. I do not understand that there is any intention to interfere with the actions of the Public Works Loans Commissioners in regard to the schemes of local authorities. I do not see any reason to disbelieve that statement, and I hope that the local authorities are not going to be misled by the speeches which have been made on the other side of the Committee. I suggest that it is an arithmetical correction which is being made and that a great deal too much importance is being attached to it by the Opposition.

Miss WILKINSON: I am sorry to have to intervene in the Debate And I apologise to the hon. Gentlemen who are standing at the Bar, for keeping them from their dinner for a few minutes, but this is a matter of considerable importance to a lot of people who are not likely to have any dinner to-night. I suggest that remarks such as are being made from both sides of the Gangway opposite to the effect. that there is nothing in this proposal, that it is only putting in one figure instead of another, and that everything will be perfectly all right, would not deceive a babe of five years old. This proposal is the beginning, the first step, in the new policy of dealing with local authorities. Everybody knows that, and those who try to pretend that it is something different, are not even deceiving themselves. They know that they will have to face their own constituents and try to explain away the words which they were using only about six weeks ago.
The Financial Secretary being a Scotsman, can produce in the sweetest possible words the most charming reasons for
avoiding the expenditure of money. But he knows that this is the beginning of a policy of cutting the local authorities down to the bone. He said —it may be, perfectly truly —that £20,000,000 was perhaps sufficient, but we do not know that it is going to be £20,000,000 or for how long it is going to be used. He has not said anything about nine months as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). He has not said that it is not likely to be for 19 months instead of nine. The point is that this is a statement of Government policy with regard to loans. As for strengthening the hands of Lord Hunsdon or this Committee, I suggest that it is the last thing that this Government need do.
This proposal is going to have a much greater effect than some realise. Various Ministry of Health inquiries with regard to loans are going on just now. In my own constituency this week they are having a local inquiry into an application for sanction to borrow money under this arrangement for very large public works. Does the Financial Secretary suggest that the reduction of this amount from £30,000,000 to £20,000,000 is not going to affect the minds of people who have to judge and report in connection with these local inquiries, when they come to make their decisions? Of course the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that that is bound to be the ease. I also ask hon. Members to consider what is likely to be the cumulative effect of the Measure which we are asked to pass —not merely the effect now. but the cumulative effect of it as it soaks down, so to speak, through the local authorities.
Everybody knows how difficult it is to get local authorities to move in this matter of public works. I think the first Minister produced by the Labour party for dealing with unemployment stated that his problem was not to vote money, but to get the local authorities to spend it. Some hon. Members may say, "If that is the case, why bother about reducing the amount from £30,000,000 to £20,000,000?" But under the previous Government the whole force of the Ministry of Health and of the Government generally was being used to try to persuade local authorities to realise their responsibility with regard to public works and to spend money wisely, in such
a way as to provide vitally necessary work that would add to the capital assets of the country. Every party has advocated that policy in this House for the past two years, but these things move very slowly, and with some local authorities it has been like pushing a heavy stone up a hill. In some cases it has taken 18 months or two years to get the local authorities to put forward schemes that have not yet been the subject of local inquiries; and then we have this gesture of this House in the midst of this crisis. What is going to be the effect?
I will give an example of the difficulty that there is in getting the local authorities to use their present powers. Middlesbrough is the centre of a huge catchment area for floods. Three years ago we had a terrible flood, which brought ruin to many people. We then tried to persuade the local authority to get busy on a large public work that would not only employ a large number of men and do away with the danger of floods, but would add to the capital assets of the authority, and yet here we had that local authority, with the whole pressure of the Ministry behind it, and what happened? It wasted a whole year, and it cut down the scheme from £150,000 to £80,000; and this: very week I have been visiting homes in my constituency which were ruined by floods that could have been prevented if the local authority had taken full advantage of this procedure. I give that as an illustration of the sort of difficulty that there is with local authorities.
There is no Member of this House who has taken up the question of finding work for the unemployed who has not had difficulties with his own local authorities, in going to them and saying, "What work is there to be provided? "Yet the Government bring in this Bill, the psychological effect of which will be that the local authorities will use the excuse of this House and the Government and will say, "Oh dear, we must remember that we have to cut down our loans, because the Government themselves have just cut down, from £30,000,000 to £20,000,000, the money available to local authorities." I wonder if the members of the Government realise what will happen this winter. It is easy to talk about cutting down expenditure. God knows, we do
not want to spend money unnecessarily, but does anyone think, whatever the state of the national finances may be, that it is good policy to allow men to drift around this winter, doing nothing, especially if the policy of the Government in another respect throws them off unemployment benefit? You say they are work-shy and do not want work, but—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been gradually straying farther and farther from the actual point before us.

Miss WILKINSON: I am anxious to keep within the narrow point of Order, but I think it is essential to realise what the effect of this policy will be. If we were merely voting one figure or another—

The CNAIRMAN: What is going to be the effect on unemployment may be very important, but it does not arise on this particular Amendment.

Miss WILKINSON: No one is less anxious than I am even to appear to wish to contravene the rules of Order, but it seems to me an extraordinary position if this House is merely to talk figures without realising the results of those figures. I leave it there, but I would beg hon. Members not to blame men for being work-shy when they prevent the work being there to be done, because that will be the effect of this Measure. It, is extraordinary that the very people who have pleaded and lectured us and censured us, when we were on that side of the House, for not providing work, should, as their very first act as a Government, swallow all their speeches and lectures in that respect. If they say that we must do this because of a national crisis, why do something that will make the national crisis worse? But it is no use speaking to the Government. We know what will happen. We are under a practical dictatorship and are steam-rolled, but it is important that those of us who realise what it means to these devastated areas should raise our voices in protest against the Measure that is going to begin the whole policy of calculated meanness to the unemployed.

Question put, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 281.

Division No. 468.]
AYES.
[7.53 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Haycock, A. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Adamson, W. M. (Stall, Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
perry, S. F.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Healy, Cahir
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Plcton-Turbervill, Edith


Alpass, J. H.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Potts, John S.


Amnion, Charles George
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Price, M. P.


Angell, Sir Norman
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Arnott, John
Hopkin, Daniel
Raynes, W. R.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Horrabin, J. F.
Richards, R.


Ayles, Walter
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Jenkins, Sir William
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Romeril, H. G.


Barr, James
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sanders, W. S.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sandham, E.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Scurr. John


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sexton, Sir James


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kinley, J.
Shield, George William


Brooke, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, c. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Lang, Gordon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Simmons, C. J.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sinkinson, George


Buchanan, G
Lawrence, Susan
bitch, Charles H.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Leach, W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsoy, Rotherhithe)


Cameron, A. G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Smith, frank (Nuneaton)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Charleton, H. C.
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R.


Chater, Daniel
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Clark, J. S.
Longbottom, A. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Longden, F.
Strauss, G. R.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sullivan, J.


Compton, Joseph
McElwee, A.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, William G.
McEntee, V. L.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
McKinlay, A.
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tout, W. J.


Dalton, Hugh
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles



Manning, E. L.
Vaughan, David


Davles, D. L. (Pontypridd)
March, S.
Vlant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Marcus, M.
Wallace, H. W.


Duncan, Charles
Marley, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Dunnico, H.
Marshall, Fred
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Ede, James Chuter
Mathers, George
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edmunds, J. E.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Egan, W. H.
Messer, Fred
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)
Middleton, G.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Freeman, Peter
Mills, J. E.
Westwood, Joseph


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Milner, Major J.
Whlteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, William (Blaydcn)


Gossling, A. G.
Morley, Ralph
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gould, F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanslly)


Groves, Thomas E.
Mosley, sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Murnin, Hugh
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wise, E. F.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Noel-Buxton. Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Young, R. s. (Islington, North)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Oldfield, J. R.
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)



Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Palln, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Paling, Wilfrid
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Thurtle.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.


Albery, Irving James
Blrchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Bullock, Captain Malcolm


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Birkett, W. Norman
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Blinded, James
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Aske, Sir Robert
Boothby, R. J. G.
Butler, R. A.


Astor, Maj. Hn.John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Butt, Sir Alfred


Atholl, Duchess of
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Atkinson, C.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Campbell, E. T.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Boyce, Leslie
Carver, Major W. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bralthwaite, Major A. N.
Castle Stewart, Earl of


Balniel, Lord
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Beamish, Rcar-Admlral T. P. H.
Briscoe. Richard George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Beaumont, M. W.
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)


Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon
Brown, Ernest (Lelth)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
8rown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks. Newb'y)
Cocll, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Bettorton, Sir Henry B.
Buchan, John
Chamberlain, Rt.H n.Sir J.A (Birm-,W.)




Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Haslam, Henry C.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Chapman, Sir S.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Purbrick, R.


Christie, J. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pybus, Percy John


Church, Major A. G.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsbotham, H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rathbone. Eleanor


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Reid. David D. (County Down)


Collox. Major William Philip
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Remer, John R.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Reynolds. Col. Sir James


Colville, Major D. J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Rhys, Hon. Charles


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Rodd. Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cowan, D. M.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ross, Ronald D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rothschild, J. de


Crlchton-Stuart, Lord C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Holford
Salmon, Major I.


Dalrymple-Whlte, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davies. E. C. (Montgomery)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sandeman. Sir N. Stewart


Davies, MaJ. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Davison. Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Law. Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Savery, S. S.


Dawton, Sir Philip
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Scott, James


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dixey. A. C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Shepperson. Sir Ernest Whlttome


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Skelton, A. N.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Smith, R.W. (Abcrd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


England, Colonel A.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smithers, Waldron


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.)
Lymington, Viscount
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Somerset, Thomas


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Ferguson, sir John
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Fermoy, Lord
Macquisten, F. A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Flelden. E. B.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Flson, F. G. Clavering
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Foot, Isaae
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Ford, Sir P. J.
Margcsson, Captain H. D.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sueter. Rear-Admiral M. F.


Fremantlc, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Meller, R. J.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Millar, J. D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Milne. Wardlaw-, J. S.
Thompson, Luke


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Thomson, Sir F.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Gillett, George M.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Train, J.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Gins., Cirencester)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Glassey, A. E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Turton, Robert Hugh


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mulrhead, A. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nali-Cain, A. R. N.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Granville. E.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Gray, Milner
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Newton, sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wells, Sydney R.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
White, H. G.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
O'Connor, T. J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William
Withers, Sir John James


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peake, Captain Osbert
womersley, W. J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Penny, sir George
Wood, Rt. Hen. Sir Kingsley


Hanbury, C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, W. R. D.



Harbord, A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Captain Wallace and Viscount


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Elmley.

Question, "That the word 'twenty' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There is a question of great importance that I would venture to put to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is answering for the Treasury. May I draw the attention of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) to this as he is particularly concerned? Now that this Clause has been amended, £20,000,000 is to be added to the national indebtedness. I want to ask hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen who heard yesterday's Debate, especially the speeches from the other side of the House, whether they can with a clear conscience, and without certain questions being answered, add £20,000,000 to the National Debt. When the attempt was rightly made to add £30,000,000 to the Debt by my hon. Friend the late Financial Secretary, there were few protests from the Conservative party on the 13th July. Since then the whole financial situation, we are told, has worsened, so much so that it has been necessary for this spectacle to take place on the Front Bench— say it in no disrespectful way—of hon. Gentlemen with no political interests in common joining together in this mesalliance. Have the financial authorities of the country approved of this addition to the National Debt? We have a right to know that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks with great ability for the Treasury in this House, but the Treasury arc no longer all-important in these matters. We were told yesterday by the Home Secretary, in a speech to which we listened with great interest, and by the Prime Minister that it was absolutely necessary that certain economies should take place and that a certain balancing of the Budget should he made before we could obtain necessary relief for sterling. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R Horne) wilt not deny that. Yet here we are on the first day of this Government adding £20,000,000 to the National Debt.
If speak now as a patriotic Englishman who believes that the sterling is the symbol of England's might, and I do not want to have any further loss of gold or any run on the banks or anything of that kind, so I want to know if the financial authorities approve of this addition of £20,000,000 to the
National Debt. Have the international authorities been consulted? They would not say, of course, "You must not do this or that." They would say, "We want to help you, but naturally we cannot go to the investors in our different States, and we cannot expect people to subscribe money unless we are able to assure them that you are able to make economies." Is it possible for some ill-wisher on the Paris Bourse or in Wall Street, to say, "Look at the first action of this Economy Government—the new Coalition Government—they are adding £20,000,000 to the National Debt"? Have the necessary precautions been taken of consulting the gentlemen in Wall Street, at The Hague, or on the Paris Bourse? Have we got their permission? Have our new masters given their leave? Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman a clear conscience that we will not be hauled over the coals tomorrow for adding £20,000,000 to the National Debt? On every expenditure proposed by this Government we are going to have an answer to that question. We are going to remind them con tinually who their masters are.

Mr. HASLAM: Who made them their masters?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: To answer that, would take me out of order. We shall never let the Government or the country forget it. They cannot humiliate England and the House of Commons without knowing anything about it.

Mr. EDE: I see the Minister of Health in his place. I have in my hand the Order Paper that was arranged for the 20th October when this Bill was to be-considered, and his name stands at the head of six Conservative Members who, gave notice to move to omit "thirty" and to insert the word "fifteen" On a Motion of a colleague of his in the House. The Committee have just inserted "twenty" instead of "fifteen" On the 31st July the financial crisis, although existing, had not become apparent. There was no outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual disgrace of the British financial situation. Is the right hon. Gentleman, as the Minister who will have to sanction most of the loans that will have to come out of this money sure that it is safe now to include £5,000,000 more than he was prepared to include?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing a point that was disposed of by the last Amendment. The amount has been fixed by that Amendment.

Mr.EDE: I am appealing to the Minister to let me know whether it is still safe to vote for the Clause standing part of the Bill, and whether, in view of the imminent disaster that threatens this country, we ought not now, having put "twenty" in, to say that even that is too much and that the Bill had better be withdrawn. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some enlightenment on this point. I am sure that in July, when he gave notice of his Amendment, he had a very sincere desire for both the public service and the public finances, and some explanation is required from him.
I notice also that the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) had an Amendment down to allow only £15,000,000 subject to a sinking fund applicable to the amount to be issued. When he spoke earlier in this Debate, he made no reference to that. I appeal to him as a great financial authority, and as the person who stood at this Box only a few weeks ago as the ex-Financial Secretary in the previous Government denouncing this Bill, and I ask him whether it is safe to include Clause 1 of this Bill without the addition of the Amendment which he wanted on the 31st July. I feel sure that he again was guided by no other motive than a desire for the public service and that motive, I have no doubt, is as strong in his breast on that side of the House on a back Bench as it was on this side of the House standing before the Treasury Bench. I sympathise with him that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has got his job. As a Surrey man I would have liked to see a Member for Surrey, that great Conservative county, included in the Government in some responsible position. I appeal to him as the vice-chairman of the Surrey County Council, which may have to come for money under this Bill, to tell us whether it is safe to pass this Clause without the Amendment that he wanted on the 31st July.

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am waiting for a reply from the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Major ELLIOT: I did not wish to take up to the time of the Committee. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me, with a new found zeal as a patriotic Englishman for our financial stability, which burns so fervently in his breast, if the financial authorities of the country have approved of this, and whether the financial authorities of the world will look with favour upon it. The Treasury approve of it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer approves of it. Further, the House of Commons approves of it. Now the hon. and gallant Gentleman says: What about the bankers? Let me read the list of the bankers who have to approve of it. They are—Rt. Hon. Lord Hunsdon, Mr. Laurence Currie, the Hon. E. Hubbard, Mr. E. H. Loyd, the Rt. Hon. Lord Clwyd, Mr. Anthony de Rothschild, the Hon. Sir W. H. Goschen, K.B.E. Sir C. E. Hambro, K.B.E., and a great many more whom I could quote from the Public Works Loans Board. If every action of this House is approved of by as many distinguished financial men as those whose names I have just read out, the credit of this country will stand very high in a very short time.

Mr. COCKS: The representatives of the great central banks have stated that they do not intend to issue loans for industry or the State until wages have come down. Dr. Sprague, who is the American adviser to the Bank of England, and the representative in this country of the Federal Zone Board, speaking at the Royal Statistical Society last June, said the great central banks did not intend to issue any loans or credits to industry or the Government until wages came down. If they got an assurance that wages would come down then they would proceed to issue credits, so that prices should go up. Therefore, the working man, having had his wages reduced, would then have the benefit of having the cost of living put up as the result. I want to know if Dr. Sprague, who stated this—the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well he did—is amongst the list of names which he read out? I did not hear the name of Dr. Sprague, who is the uncrowned king of England to-day—although I do not think he has ever been naturalised: I am going to put a question to the Home Secretary about that—and I did not hear the name of Mr. Montagu Norman, who is—

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has sufficient intelligence to know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Partisan!"] I am sure that the hon. Member would be the last to think that I had intended to say anything rude. If I did so, I withdraw it. I will put it in another way. If the hon. Member considers the matter, he will realise that he is not now discussing anything which has to do with the issue of loans by the Public Works Loans Commissioners.

Mr. COCKS: I would assure the Committee that I have absolute confidence, Sir, in your fairness and impartiality. I recalled the statement that was made by the central banks, and when the Public Works Loans Commissioners are going to issue a loan of £20,000,000 I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has had the approval of Mr. Montagu Norman and Dr. Sprague. Otherwise, the country will be in doubt about the matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The question put by my hon. Friend was quite pertinent, and I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has been very good in giving us information, will reply. I ant perfectly satisfied with what he said about the distinguished bankers he named. They are all in the swim and I suppose it is all right: but my hon. Friend is not satisfied, and as this is a matter of £20,000,000 surely we are entitled to an answer.

Major ELLIOT: We all appreciate the chivalry of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in pressing for an answer for which, I think, the hon. Member himself was not so desirous. Surely the answer to his question is contained in the statement which he himself made. I read out the names of the Government advisers. They do not include the names of Dr. Sprague or Mr. Montagu Norman, and their opinion has not been asked in the matter. Surely the fact that they are not in the list of Public Works Loans Commissioners makes it unnecessary for us to consider what their opinions are.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask whether it would be in order for me to hand in a manuscript Amendment to the effect that the names of Mr. Montagu Norman
and Dr. Sprague should be added to the Public Works Loans Commissioners?

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Ifill," put,. and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Certain debts not to be reckoned as assets of local loans fund.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr EDE: I want—[Interruption.] Six weeks ago that, would have been meant as a compliment, and I take it as such to-night, but I take it from whence it came, as the old woman said when she was walking across the common and the donkey kicked her. I regret that the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) has not risen, because here we are dealing with a question of wiping out the debts of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, and the hon. Member for Farnham, with that zeal for economy which he used to display before the crisis but, has lost now that the crisis has arrived, had an Amendment on the Paper on 31st July which would have confined us to wiping out only half these debts. Apparently there have been cases in which loans have been advanced and, when the Board have called for repayment, they have not been able to get the money. The hon. Member for Farnham thought then that his present right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was too generous in agreeing to forgo the whole of these debts, though personally I should not have regarded generosity in forgiving debts as the outstanding characteristic of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Farnham had an Amendment down limiting the amount to be forgiven by one half. Now the hon. Member is too modest. to stand up and advocate that same policy. [Interruption.] I am encouraging him to be less like the violet that. loves to blush unseen. The question had been proposed and the matter would have gone by default if I had not stepped in.
I wish to ask the Financial Secretary what justification there is for wiping out the whole of these debts. Was his hon. Friend the Member for Farnham right when he tried to limit the amount by one half? After all, his hon. Friend was
Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the last purely Conservative Government and he is a man of initiative. When it was a question of patent lighters he could produce a policy of his own, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to repudiate it the next day. At any rate six or seven weeks ago the hon. Member thought that the Labour Government were too generous in forgiving these debts. Now it is more necessary than ever to preserve the assets of the nation, yet the hon. Member did not rise when he had the opportunity to press this point on his hon. and gallant Friend. In view of the clear indication of Front Bench opinion six weeks ago, when they were Conservatives pure and undefiled, that only half these debts ought to be forgiven, is the hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared, in the present grave financial situation, knowing probably the appalling tale that is to be told to us to-morrow, to say that half these assets ought not to be preserved—on the books at any rate, we do not say more than that—in the hope that something may he retrieved from the wreckage? That. was what the hon. Member for Farnham wanted my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. PethickLawrence) to do six or seven weeks ago. This sudden change of front ought to he explained to the House because we have been told that this is to he an economy Session. In five or six weeks' time, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham will have to go where the hops grow, and he may have to hop very fast himself if he cannot explain his sudden change of front on this question. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to tell us whether he is prepared to recommend the Committee to follow the policy of the Labour party and the policy of the hon. Member for Farnham.

Mr. MACLEAN: I should like the Financial Secretary to explain the reason why this particular Clause has been put in the Bill. I have been looking at the Schedule, and I think I have found the reason why the Financial Secretary was not anxious to rise and explain this Clause. Many lion. Members opposite have been joining in the ramp against the late Government for their extravagance and indulging in jibes against the Labour Government for their extrava-
gance. A week ago the Financial Secretary indulged in his usual methods of oratory at a garden party in Scotland, and he ridiculed the Labour Government for the way in which they had governed the country during the last. two and a-half years.
On going through the list of individual's whose debts we are being asked to write off, I find that the money was advanced without obtaining proper security, and that is the reason why the Financial Secretary is not anxious to explain. The writing off of these loans is due to the extravagance not of the Labour Government but of the Tory Government. If the Session is extended, and if it is found to be impossible for the Government to proceed to a General Election at an early date, there will be a large number of other debts which will have to be written off in the same manner so far as public works loans are concerned. Before granting all these loans did the Government make inquiries from the banks, and did they ask whether these people were financially sound? Are the Government now acting on the advice of the banks, and are they again taking instructions from the bankers? Have the bankers recommended that all this money should be written off because the debts were irrecoverable? Did the Government, of which the Financial Secretary was a member, make inquiries from the banks when the loans were advanced in order to find out whether these particular individuals were sound financially at that time? These are all matters which have not been explained. The Schedule does not give a sufficient explanation of the reasons why these debts should be written off.
On the second Parliamentary day of the economy Government it is remarkable that we are being asked to squander money in this fashion. It is rather significant that the National Government, formed to save the financial position of the country, have brought forward as their first Bill a Measure which is simply throwing away public money, because in the past they were very extravagant and did not obtain sound securities for the money which they advanced as public works loans. The Committee is now being asked to agree to a proposal to throw away public money by writing off debts to cer-
tain individuals. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who in the past has always been very voluble in his attacks on the late Government, now sits silent and does not rise to explain the reasons why we are to proceed with this throwing away of public money. I think he must have been gagged by the bankers and has had the golden muzzle put around him. Why does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not explain these matters to the House? Perhaps he will explain these points at the next garden party which he addresses in Scotland. The Financial Secretary ought to take the Committee into his confidence instead of telling people that the late Government were constantly squandering public money.
Why does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not tell the people that his own Government took over £202,000,000 received from the sale of War stores, and put it into the Budget as revenue received for that year, instead of placing it to the reduction of the National Debt? One of the reasons why this country is in such financial difficulties is because past. Chancellors of the Exchequer, acting for Tory Governments, have been using the finances of this country to balance their Budgets in a manner which, were they to pursue it in connection with a public company in this country, would land them in gaol. I just throw out the warning to the Financial Secretary not to accept any advice that may be given to him by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to consider methods of finance that are a little more sound and are looked upon by people of integrity as being more honest than those which have been followed out in the past. Otherwise, he may find the Lord Advocate being called in, in the same way as he is being called in in the silk scandal, to undertake a prosecution of some individuals who really ought not to be in public office at all.
I am not referring to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I want to congratulate him, as one Scotsman to another, on being appointed to his present position, but, at the same time, I want him to preserve the traditions of the Scotsman in being a little more cautious about the squandering of money. If he had done so, I am sure he would rather have waited, before accepting his new post, until this Bill had gone through. I hope
that at least he will take the House into his confidence, and explain why it is necessary that this should be done by a Government which has been set up in a rush, as quickly as aeroplanes could convey the various Ministers to take their seals. [Interruption.] I want him to tell the people of the country, just as publicly as he criticised the late Government, what are his reasons and the reasons of his Government for throwing away money on the second day of the meeting of a Government that was appointed in order to save money for the country.

Major ELLIOT: I will proceed to explain to the hon. Member, whose congratulations I accept, although I must say I wish he had been A little less pointed in making them, for it will cause great distrust on this side of the House in my bona fides if I find myself complimented from that side of the House. [Interruption.] Surely, the essential thing for the country just now is to know how it stands. We are not throwing away this money. This money has gone, and we are telling the country that it has gone. The hon. Member asks who tells us that it has gone. We are told that by the Commissioners of the Public Works Loans Fund, who were confirmed in office by the hon. Member's own Government and by his own Vote, and in whom he placed his financial trust. They said, "This money is not there. Do not deceive yourselves; it has gone." That is a thing which any Financial Secretary ought to tell the country through the House of Commons, and that is why I am telling it now.

Mr. McSHANE: I think that Clause 2 is the most important part of this Bill. In reply to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, I should like to point out that, although it is true that the late Government confirmed the Commissioners in their posts, most of the money referred to in this Clause was lost during the administration of the Conservative Government. I do not know whether hon. and right hon. Members have closely examined the Schedule attached to the Financial Memorandum, but on page ix I find an extraordinary account of what has happened:
The Public Works Loans Commissioners made an advance of £9,375 on the security of a property known as Great Trench and
the Yews Farm, Hildenborough, Kent, having an acreage of 200 acres, which was valued at £12,500 in April, 1925, by the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue. The borrower fell into arrear with the payment due in June, 1927, under his mortgage, and in October, 1927, the Board took possession of the property in their security. Efforts to sell the property privately failed, and in June, 1928, it was put up for sale by auction.
The Committee will note that all this was taking place under the regime of the super-economists who now occupy the benches opposite. It goes on:
The board were advised by their Receiver and by the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue, that the reserve should be fixed at £5,550 (exclusive of timber and valuations, which amounted to £1,399 6s.). The property was sold at this price, and after discharging outgoings and expenses for which the Board were liable, and after discharging the interest outstanding up to the 17th January, 1929, there remained a deficiency of £3,644 11s. 9d.
The result was that the gentleman whom they had tried to induce to purchase that property himself became bankrupt, so that the second sale was a bankruptcy sale. It is stated that:
The board issued a writ against the borrower for the recovery of this amount, and obtained judgment. A Bankruptcy Notice was served on the borrower, and on the 22nd April, 1929, a Receiving Order was made against bins on the board's petition. The borrower was subsequently adjudicated bankrupt, but no dividend could be paid owing to lack of assets, and after payment of the necessary costs and fees there remains a final deficiency of £3,673 10s. 7d.
It is not without significance that this country should now be approaching bankruptcy itself, after administration like that, which resulted in one person after another, in his attempt to purchase this property, becoming bankrupt. I can only attribute that to the malign influence of those who were at the head of affairs at the time.
There is another point that should be referred to, particularly because of criticisms that were made to-day and yesterday in the House. I notice, from page iv of the Schedule, that a considerable sum has to be written off because certain piers and harbour works have got into serious disrepair. This Government was described yesterday as simply a breakdown gang. I should have thought that, instead of writing off this money, the breakdown gang would have
been sent up to repair those piers and harbours, and, quite frankly, I think the country would be much better off if they were engaged at that job instead of the job in which they are engaged at the present time. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) that the severest criticism that can be made of this Government at the moment is that its first Measure is one to sqander thousands upon thousands of the nation's money, while to-morrow and on the ensuring days it is proposed to take money from unemployed men and women. When this Government has finished its job, it will be hailed by the country with nothing but execration, and will be condemned as a Government born under the malign influence of bankers whose influence can be seen already, and will he felt throughout. The appointment of this Government reminds me of an appointment that was made—

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member seems to be getting somewhat distant from Clause 2.

Mr. McSHANE: Clause 2 is in effect wiping out a considerable amount of money. There are unemployed men who will need that money later on. I am only showing that the influence which is already persuading the Government to do this is the influence which practically compelled the House to sanction the appointment of Sir Ernest Gowers at £7,000 a year. A great proportion of that money also, which we object to, might well have been spent in helping the unemployed. I hope the House will divide on this Clause and will reject it. It will show that we are, at any rate, making some attempt to save whatever we justifiably can without inflicting hardship on poor people.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the Financial Secretary give us an explanation as to one of these firms whose debt to the State we are asked to expunge? Who are Messrs. Clinch and Goddard? This is a firm that got money out of this wonderful Committee that the hon. and gallant Gentleman boasts about. He told us a little while ago that it was all right and that we might be cerain that our money would be safe. This was during the Conservative Government that preceded the late Government.
The date was 31st January, 1925. It was in Worcestershire. The firm was allowed an advance of £9,000 on a certain farm, called Hill End Farm. Was this a private firm, and what public work were they doing? The other thing is this. It goes a long way back. In 1905, in the time of the Balfour Government, a loan was made which we are asked to expunge by this Clause which we are asked to rush through by hon. Members who, I suppose, want to go off to some place of entertainment. Who are these Brownies Taing Pier Trustees? Apparently they are men of straw. They were in some semi-public position and they received these large sums of money which are now lost. Now that we have another Conservative Government, we want to see that public money is not loosely and inefficiently used in the same manner.

Major ELLIOT: I have rarely seen the hon. and gallant Gentleman in such good form, but I wish the subject of his amusement could have been communicated to us. We should have appreciated the joke as much as he did. But I had great difficulty, owing to his laughter, in making out exactly what was the complaint that he was bringing against us. It appeared to be that we had lent money to a place with a humorous name. I am sorry that it appears so funny to him. It is a harbour in the Shetlands. It is the resort of those fishermen with whom he served with great distinction in the Great War, whose cause he has often pled before the House. These expenditures were incurred for the purpose, as the Memorandum states, of putting the pier, hauling slip, and so on into proper operation. Disaster fell upon the port. It is not nearly so funny to the fishermen as it is to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It means the wrecking of the port and the stopping of the livelihood of the herring fishermen. The herring fishing industry was disorganised in 1915 and 1916 and, since that time it has not been possible to collect the revenue. It is, perhaps, a little ungracious to complain of the Public Works Loans Board for not grinding out the last sixpence and maintaining on the hooks of this great nation book debts which it is impossible to collect and from which no revenue now exists.
As regards Messrs. Clinch & Goddard, I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman to accept my assurance that these debts have been gone into most carefully.
They represent bankruptcy, destitution, and the failure of an enterprise entered into with the assurance of security sufficient to convince even the flinty hearted Commissioners of the Public Works Loans Board that they had a reasonable chance of success. These things have failed, and they have to be written off. It is rather a matter of tragedy than of laughter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has misrepresented me. I am grateful for the information he has given.

Major ELLIOT: It may seem very funny, but these two farmers entered into the difficult, arduous and uncertain occupation of cultivating the soil of this Land. They are not foreign bankers or rentiers, but people who attempted to make a living by cultivating the soil, and were able to show what they thought, and what the Public Works Commissioners thought, was reasonable security. An advance of 75 per cent. was made, but owing to depression in farming these people passed into bankruptcy, for the enterprise failed. These cases are examples of that decline in the prosperity of our major industry of agriculture which all of us deplore. Although it is a pity that public money has been lost, yet, on the whole, if we have to lose public money at the ends of the earth or in our own country, I am sure that ail of us in every part of the Committee would prefer, at any rate, that our own people should have the first help. Instead of public money being invested in investments far overseas, it has been I asked and lost, I frankly admit, in these ventures here at. home. We have done our best, the Labour Government and the present Government. This represents a long, continuous survey of these unfortunate men's affairs. I do not know whether more money will not yet have to be written off in regard to farming ventures in this country.
The hon. Lady the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) spoke of the gesture that this House was making to the local authorities to cut down this loan. What sort of a gesture are the Commissioners likely to make in reply to the criticism we have heard in the last hour or so from the opposite side of the Committee about debts which have to be written off? Are they not likely to say: "We must watch still more
closely and stringently all the schemes brought before us, and not trust farmers and little herring ports. The money may be lost and have to be written off, and then the unmeasured criticism, the powerful sharp criticism of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) will be hurled upon us. We will play for safety and lend no money." And these people will find their defenders have done them a very bad turn. These examples represent the wreckage and the wastage of a great effort. All one can say is that these cases have been examined by the competent authorities, who tell us that the money is not there. I ask the Committee to accept their assurances and not to go further into the miseries which each of those separate cases represent. These cases will be published in the local newspapers and elsewhere with the criticisms that this Committee have made upon them, and it would injure people whom no one in this Committee would wish to injure.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question. Are we to understand, in regard to the wiping off of this debt, that it has been in the books as an asset? Has there been a scrutiny in the Treasury by accountants and those expert in finance to show that, as far as the Department is concerned and as far as the Conservative party are concerned, we have been carrying on the books of the Treasury what is known as assets, but which any business man would have wiped off long ago? I am told that the sins of the parents are visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generations, and are we to understand that the sins of the past regime of the Tory party are now being visited upon this House under what is known as the co-operative coalition party? Are we to have more examples of this? Is this only the first that has come along, or are there any more? We heard yesterday that everybody will have to tighten their belts. We are told that it is a 10 per cent. reduction only, and that 1s. 8d. off 17s. for a man unemployed will not be very much; it is only to be a national sacrifice. I am certain from what I have heard of the discussion to-night there is very little
seriousness from the point of view of business. A discussion has been going on in this Committee over the sum of £13,889 19s. 1d. No doubt the 1d. must have been for a, stamp.
This House, I am told, has to consider in extremis the whole finances of the nation. What do we find? The whole nation is said to he in a panic, and on matters of public importance the nation outside is anxiously waiting to hear what is the object of the National Government. The Government now conic along and say that this is an opportune time to say to the Opposition that we must wipe off the debts referred to in this Bill. It may be the appointed day of salvation, but if this is the way you are going to save the nation, I am afraid you will have to get a better accountant at work and come along with a better book of words sc far as we are concerned. Is it not idiocy, having told the whole nation of the difficulties of the finances, to come forward and say: "Wipe off the debts which we have been holding as good debts in our books"? If one had been the manager of a chip-potato shop, he could not have carried on the business in a worse fashion. You can look at the matter as you like, but I believe that if I were managing a business for some of the Members on the opposite benches, I should have been sent about my business if I dared to have said to my employers that they, should wipe off debts at a critical period. Do you not think it time that you should close your books altogether, give up the business and let someone come in who can run the show? Let those who sit on the Front Bench, instead of dealing with questions of accountancy, face the issue squarely, and say: "This is our first lamentable attempt to present something to the House which we wish to get rid of." In the name of all that is good and holy, get rid of yourselves, because you are not fit to manage any business.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Remission of balance of principal and interest in respect of certain local loans.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. EDE: On Clause 2 I endeavoured to ask a perfectly proper question of the Financial Secretary, but he did not do me the honour of giving me a single word in reply. Therefore I regret that I am bound to repeat the question on this Clause. On this Clause the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) put down an Amendment to wipe out only half of the debt. I now specifically ask the Financial Secretary this question: Does he advise us to follow the policy of His Majesty's late Government in wiping out the whole of this debt, or the policy of the hon. Member for Farnham who six weeks ago, from this side of the House, as the financial spokesman of the Conservative party, desired to wipe out only one-half of the debt. I hope that I may have the courtesy of a reply. I was not discourteous to the Financial Secretary, and I do not think he can complain of a single word I said in regard to him. Does he apply half measures to the hon. Member for Farnham? It may be that the hon. and gallant Member does not, feel competent to answer for himself. He is not supported by any very responsible Minister of the Crown.-The benches opposite at the moment show the interest that is taken in saving the country's finances. I have noticed that the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), who started well down the bench early this afternoon is gradually coming nearer to the Financial Secretary. Perhaps he will be able to give him the necessary advice that will enable him to answer a simple question, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham belongs to a very strict trade union.
My question is a fair one. An ex-Financial Secretary of a Conservative Government, six weeks ago, suggested that we should only wipe out half these debts. When our Papers arrived on the morning of the 1st August, the Amendment still stood on the Paper. Between now and then the policy of the Conservative party has been altered in the direction of extravagance, because they now desire to wipe out the whole of the debts. I can only imagine that it is because the hon. Member is now associated with the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the President of the
Board of Education and the Paymaster-General in an alliance which he used to think was wrong when it was carried on with us. Now he has been tainted with some of the vice that he used to attribute to us. Does the Financial Secretary stand by what the late Government proposed or for what the hon. Member for Farnham threatened six weeks ago?

Major ELLIOT: I apologise to the hon. Member for any seeming discourtesy in not replying to him on the last occasion on which he addressed the Committee. Surely, the hon. Member is not ignorant of the fact that actions which seem not to be trustworthy become trustworthy in certain circumstances. For instance, we hear what hon. Members opposite say about the bankers. They did not attack the bankers when their help was given to the Government of which the hon. Member was a distinguished supporter, but they seem to have the deepest distrust of the bankers when they are not applying themselves to the support of their own political friends—[Interruption.]

Mr. EDE: I voted against Lord Hunsdon.

Major ELLIOT: I am not talking about Lord Hunsdon. I am talking about credits which the bankers were able to obtain for the benefit of the Government of which the hon. Member opposite was so distinguished a supporter. Surely, when there was a Government in office which was subject to powerful pressure, repeatedly exercised, by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) the hon. Member for Farnham felt for that Government the deepest distrust and uneasiness. Under such powerful influence he had seen that Government bend and wilt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Now he has bent and wilted!"] He is giving his powerful advice and help to a Government of a much more representative character, of whose members only three are required at the moment to meet the serried ranks of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Farnham is not afraid of the present Government bending and
wilting under the pressure of the hon. Member for South Shields.

Mr. EDE: It is the same Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Major ELLIOT: It may be the same Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I can assure the hon. Member that we will not subject him to that continuous assault in regard to which we pitied him when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Administration. The Amendments brought forward by the hon. Member for Farnham were made for the purpose of raising questions which it was proper for the Opposition to raise, in order that they might be answered. When this Bill was last before the Committee there were not available certain papers which are now available, particularly the annual report of the Public Works Loans Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and other hon. Members took strong objection to the fact that that report was not available at that time. Moreover, the Bill was then brought forward late at night. It is now being brought forward early. For these reasons, and seeing that we have laid the relative documents, the hon. Member for Farnham sees no necessity for pressing further his inquiries.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is this an apology?

Major ELLIOT: It may be an apology to say that we are bringing in a Measure with respect to £20,000,000 at a reasonable time instead of at 1 o'clock in the morning. If that can be regarded as an apology, I am ready to make it, and I am certain that other Financial Secretaries would wish that they had had the chance of making such an apology. After this explanation, I hope that the last objection of the hon. Member has been removed and that hon. Members opposite will allow us to have the Bill.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

DISTURBANCE, WESTMINSTER.

MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. SIMMONS: I desire to raise the matter of the action of the police outside the House last night. I have intimated to the Home Secretary that I intended to raise this question, and I do not propose to delay the House any longer than is absolutely necessary. I am sorry that the notice has been rather short and I hope that the Home Secretary, who is not in his place at the moment, will find it convenient to be present for a few moments. I am going to recount what was witnessed by myself and other hon. Members outside the House last night. I am not raising this question in any spirit of hostility towards the police. As an ex-Service man I realise that men who are in the service of the Crown or in the service of any authority are not free agents, that they are men acting under orders, and that the penalty for disobedience of orders is very severe. Therefore, whatever strictures I may make to-night they are not intended, and I hope will not be taken, as any reflection upon the integrity and honour of the police force as a Police Force or upon the individuals who make up the force. I had hoped that by the time I had made these preliminary observations the Home Secretary would have been in his place, and perhaps some of his colleagues will acquaint him with the facts that I intend to put before the House. One might at least have expected that the Under-Secretary would be in his place.

Major ELLIOT: We have acquainted the Home Secretary with the fact that the hon. Member is raising the matter, but the notice has been somewhat short. I can assure the hon. Member that no discourtesy is intended.

Mr. SIMMONS: One matter which I want to raise is the use of what is regarded by myself and some of my colleagues as provocative and unnecessary action against a body of peaceable and orderly citizens outside this House last night. The excuse that is given. I understand, is that of obstruction. In order to view the effect of the new flood lighting which is now prevalent over London
huge crowds gathered outside this House last night, as they have gathered, I understand, on previous occasions. Indeed, I heard on the wireless that a famous dance band was held up by the obstruction caused by the crowd which gathered to view the flood lighting on that occasion. There was an enormous crowd outside the House last night viewing the flood lighting, but no charge of obstruction was made, and no action was taken by the police. I submit that unemployed men and women have as much right to be in that crowd as anyone else as individual sightseers. Some of the crowd were no doubt commenting favourably on the effects of the flood lighting. They were all right, and no action was taken against them. Others were commenting unfavourably on the National Government, on individual Members of the National Government and on the effects of the policy of the National Government.
The police were congregated in the vicinity of the House, and I understand that there was the greatest aggregation of police ever known in the vicinity of this House last evening. A group of my colleagues who were with me in Palace Yard, looking on at the proceedings, were only commenting, a few moments before the events that happened, on the good humour of the crowd. We said:
Well, the cut in unemployment pay and the proposals of the new Government do not appear to have excited the revolutionary passion of the people.
"John Brown's body" and songs like that did not appear to us to herald the coming of the revolution, or of disorder. The crowd was singing these songs quite good-humouredly, and obviously, from the nature of the songs they were singing, they were unemployed, or friends of the unemployed. The police apparently knew that. Just as we had commented upon the orderliness and good, humour of the crowd, we saw two or three platoons of foot police brought out of Palace Yard, and from various positions, and then we saw a body of horsemen brought out as well. Some of us suggested that this was provoking trouble. Here was an orderly crowd. I take it that the Home Secretary, who has just come in, would not call the singing of "John Brown's body," or even of the "International," a disorderly pro-
ceeding. That is all that the crowd were doing.
A number of mounted police appeared on the scene, and that orderly crowd suddenly found mounted police among them on the pavement. The obvious object of the mounted police was to segregate that portion of the crowd which had been singing, and which had very likely been passing uncomplimentary remarks about the National Government, from the rest of the crowd. Quite deliberately, people were escorted across the road, and in different directions, and eventually a part of the crowd, which was obviously made up of unemployed, was isolated. Then they were driven forward by the mounted police. We saw one man at least being brought back, with blood streaming down his face, and with two hefty policemen holding his arms and the back of his neck. I am afraid some of us got rather excited and came back into the House in an excited state over the matter.
I feel very strongly that this is a most inauspicious opening for the new Government. I want to appeal most earnestly to the Home Secretary to let us know what we are to expect in the future, so far as the relations between the police and the unemployed are concerned. Have orders been issued that no unemployed demonstrations are to be held? Have orders been issued to the police to treat the unemployed with severity when demonstrations are held? Surely we have a right to know what the unemployed, many of whom are our friends, are to expect now that this particular Government is in power. As I said before the Home Secretary came in, I am not making any charges or attacks upon individual policemen. I regard them as servants of the public, and I know that they act under orders. I know that the pains and penalties of disobeying those orders are too great to expect any man to incur them. I tried to get at those who are in higher authority than the actual policemen.
The Home Secretary will probably be responsible for any orders that have been given, and I want to ask him whether, after the display that we had outside the House of Commons last night, any suggestions or circular letters have been sent to the provincial local authorities, watch committees or standing joint com-
mittees, on the question of the treatment of the unemployed. I want to stress the point that a crisis is having to be faced in the homes of these very people. I ask the Government not to think that they can cow down or frighten the whole of the unemployed. The action that was taken last night will do more harm than a thousand speeches from Communist or Independent Labour party platforms, and will do far more to create disorder and incipient revolution than any speeches or pamphlets. They do not realise the danger of goading hungry men and women to action that might lead to very serious trouble.
I hope not merely that no such orders have been issued, but that the Home Office might go out of its way, during this time of unparalleled distress and crisis, to issue a circular letter to the various police authorities, suggesting that special and sympathetic consideration should be given to the unemployed, and that every facility should be afforded them for their demonstrations, and that any ban on their meetings should be withdrawn. In my opinion and in that of my hon. Friends, if the police are compelled by those in authority to sit on the safety valve during this crisis, there may he a very serious explosion.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): In reply to the bon. Member, let me say that, in the first place, that I have received no notice at all that this subject was to be raised. I have been on the premises of the House from the moment that it met this afternoon until now, and, until a message reached me a few moments ago, when I was engaged in a conference in one of the rooms behind the Speaker's chair, I had no knowledge that this topic was to be raised this evening. I venture to suggest that the hon. Member has done less than his duty in failing to give due notice to the Minister responsible.

Mr. SIMMONS: I would apologise for the short notice that the right hon. Gentleman has received, but I think my notice was sent an hour and a-half ago. I did not know that there was to be a Debate on the Adjournment to-night. At the first moment that I knew I could raise this matter, I sent a note direct to the Home Secretary.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The apology is due, not for the shortness of the notice, but for the fact that the notice was not sent in such a way as to make it sure that it reached me. I had no notice, and I was quite unaware that the subject was to be raised. I am, of course, acquainted with the occurrences that took place last night, when a comparatively small number of persons, largely, I believe, youths desiring to attract some public attention, collected in the neighbourhood of the House of Commons. It, was necessary to disperse this little crowd, particularly since there were large numbers of law-abiding, peaceful citizens in the neighbourhood who were visiting the flood-lighted scenes, and a certain small number of them were arrested. They have, I believe, been brought before a magistrate to-day and most or all of them were bound over to be of good behaviour for the future. They have been treated with much leniency. So far as I am aware, the Metropolitan police have handled this small crowd with the usual careful consideration which our London policemen give to those with whom they happen to be brought into momentary conflict. The crowd had to be dispersed, in order to maintain the public highways for the use of the population in general. If the hon. Member has any specific case which he desires to raise, of any policeman having acted in an improper manner, that will, of course, receive the fullest, most careful and impartial inquiry. He asks whether any special orders have been issued by the Home Office, in order to stir the police authorities in London and elsewhere to repressive measures. No such orders have been issued by my authority and, so far as I am aware, no such orders have been issued by any other authority. He asked whether any circular had been issued to provincial police authorities dealing with this matter. I have not heard of any such circular having been issued, and although I cannot speak negatively, since I have had no opportunity of inquiring, I have no reason to believe that, any such circular has been issued. The police and the police authorities are well aware what is their duty in ordinary circumstances, namely, to maintain law and order with firmness but at the same time with no unnecessary violence or spirit of repression. That normal duty of the police authorities has been fulfilled
and will be fulfilled in the ordinary course in the future as in the past.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Home Secretary mentioned that a very small and a very insignificant crowd caused some disturbance among the more law-abiding sections of the crowd who were here to view the flood lighting. Since it was a small and insignificant section of the crowd, can he inform the House how many mounted police were in the vicinity of the House last night, how many foot police were here at the same time, and what proportion of plain clothes men were held in reserve near the House? What proportion did the numbers of police, mounted and foot, within the precincts, bear towards the total number of police in the Metropolitan area?

Mr. McSHANE: I wish to associate myself with the most moderate statement of the case put forward by the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. Simmons). We who have known the Home Secretary for a couple of years or so and have known his unfailing tact and patience when ho sat on the Opposition benches, must confess a slight surprise at the reply he has given to us. I was among the crowd for a very considerable time last night, and if, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a comparatively small crowd was concerned with the disturbances, the matter has become much more serious than the hon. Member for Erdington suggested. If it was a comparatively small crowd it was almost equalled in numbers by the foot and horse police who were there. In my life I have not seen so many foot and horse police sent out to deal with a comparatively small crowd. I wish to know why the Home Secretary states almost explicitly, or at any rate by implication, that this comparatively small crowd was not law-abiding. Who told him that? Who gave him the information that the crowd was not a law-abiding crowd, and that when some of them appeared at the police courts this morning they were treated almost with kindness in being allowed to go away?
A considerable number of hon. Members of this House were out in the street, and the important feature of the gathering was this: That first of all one could not tell who were the unemployed as distinct from the ordinary sightseers; and, secondly, that throughout the crowd one
could hear songs like "John Brown's Body" and "Are we downhearted?" the whole of the time. It was while they were in that mood that this extraordinary and most provocative display of force was sent out there. With great respect to the Home Secretary, we arc not attributing the blame for this extraordinary display of force to the ordinary individual constables; they did not go out on their own account. That display of force was sent out by a higher authority, and I say without hesitation that the right hon. Gentleman ought to bring that person into trouble. If it was a comparatively small crowd, they were most law-abiding and in the utmost good humour, yet before very long mounted police were among them, they were driven hither and thither, and in a short time, although there had been no attempt at any violence by any of the crowd, we found numbers of them coming towards us bleeding. I think that nothing need have happened at, all, that if there had been tact and patience shown by those in authority the whole thing would have passed off without any incidents whatever.
This winter is going to be a very severe one for the unemployed, particularly after the "cuts" have been inflicted upon them. I ask the Home Secretary to issue some kind of instruction that because of the rigours of the approaching winter and the hardships which the unemployed will have to suffer, whenever possible, without difficulty to the public welfare at all, demonstrations like that of last night might well be allowed. It is infinitely better that they should be allowed than that they should be suppressed and burst out somewhere with violence. I ask also that the police throughout the country should be specially requested to show great patience and tact and sympathy with these poor folk. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the facile report that has been given to him with regard to last night's occurrence, and that he will go much more fully into it. If he does so I am sure he will come to the conclusion that there was a wholly unnecessary and provocative display of force against a good-humoured crowd, who probably felt that they had a grievance, as we know they have. When the right hon. Gentleman makes inquiry, not alone from his official advisers but from every
source open to him, I am certain he will find that there was bad judgment on the part of those in control, and that their sense of judgment must have been warped entirely, because there were really two crowds, those who had come along here and the great mass of ordinary sightseers who were interested either in the financial crisis or in the floodlighting of this House.

Mr. BROCKWAY: As a London Member I would express my appreciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington (Mr. Simmons) for having raised this matter. I am glad that he raised it because he was a witness of the occurrences outside the House. I cannot claim to give the same evidence, but I came through the crowd shortly before the occurrences happened, and I have very rarely been through a crowd, assembled for the purpose of a political demonstration, which was more good-humoured than that crowd. But the particular reason why I want to intervene is that I have been alarmed by the tone of the Home Secretary in the reply which he has given to these criticisms. I am one of those who have appreciated certain aspects of Liberal principles. Perhaps it is because I was brought up in those Radical principles myself. What has appealed to me in Liberal principles has been the belief that force and repression arc harmful and should be avoided.
What fills me with alarm is not so much the occurrences of last night, as the spirit which the Home Secretary has revealed in the House this evening. It seems to me that the Home Secretary has very rapidly changed in his mental attitude as a result of contact with his colleagues in the new Government. I hope that the temper revealed in his reply is not going to be the temper of the Home Office in its attitude towards the unemployed during the coming winter. I do not think one is using words which are too strong in saying that the right hon. Gentleman revealed a complacency as to last night's occurrences and a contempt for those who were demonstrating which ought not to be expressed in the speech of one who has called himself a Liberal. We might have expected to find it expressed if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had been Home Secretary. [HON. MEM-
BERS: "Or the Member for Platting."] One notices that the kind of temper which has been expressed in the Home Secretary's speech is also finding expression in the mouths of some of the Liberal Members occupying back benches opposite.
I wish to put this point as strongly as I can to the Home Secretary. Even if he takes the view, which we on these benches cannot take, that it is necessary in the present national circumstances, to impose further hardships on the unemployed, then the very fact that he believes it to be a national necessity to do so ought to make him much more careful as to the manner in which he treats the unemployed when that suffering is imposed upon them. If they are to be sacrificed to the national crisis, the Home Secretary ought to have an added determination that in the administration of his office he will not treat them with harshness and rigour in the event of protests which must inevitably arise against those hardships. I beg of him to take warning from the events of last night; to make a thorough inquiry into what happened; to investigate whether the display of force was necessary; to discover by whom the orders were given, and to use his influence to see that that method of dealing with such demonstrations is not repeated in London or anywhere else during the occurrences which are likely to happen in the coming winter.
We are facing a winter in which there will be demonstrations of revolt by the unemployed and by the working class as a result of the policy which the Government are going to pursue. If that situation is not to become dangerous, then, at least, the Government who carry out that policy of hardship to the unemployed and the workers, must be very careful indeed in the manner in which they deal with the workers when they protest against those hardships. It is because I desire to appeal to the Home Secretary to inquire into last. night's events, and to take the utmost care that those events do not recur, that I venture to intervene in this Debate.

Miss WILKINSON: When the Home Secretary made those remarks, which I am sure he meant about the courtesy and kindness of the London police, my mind went back to his previous occupation of
the office which he holds to-day. In those days he made very much the same kind of speech as he has made to-night about certain other occurrences, and about how the London police were to be trusted in all circumstances, to use the utmost consideration in dealing with those who came under their hands. I remember friends of my own, who were asking for the vote, being brought broken and bleeding, into the offices of the Suffrage Society of that time. The people who demonstrated last night were not women of position and wealth as many of those women were. Those women in many eases had influential friends and relatives and could make their voices heard. I am sure the Home Secretary meant what he said tonight, and I have no doubt he meant what he said all those years ago, but I put this to him, as a man of great intelligence. He ought to ask himself whether if such things were done in those days—and it is admitted that they were done, now that all the letters and memoirs have appeared—if those things were done then, against women who had every power to protest, what is being done by those same police to-day to friendless, homeless, and unhappy men who have no one to speak for them?
Some of us have a memory of the right hon. Gentleman's previous Home Secretaryship. I have no doubt that he spoke to-night the comfortable words which were given to him by superintendents and chiefs of police. The police of those days gave him reports that all was well. We know now that all was not well. We know now some of the things that were done in those days. Therefore I urge the right hon. Gentleman to go deeper than the smooth words of officialdom. I am not, Heaven knows, blaming the individual constable. He acts under orders, but anyone who has been in conflict with the police as I have been and as ninny of my friends have been, knows that there is all the difference in the world between an individual dealing with an individual policeman, or being dealt with by an individual policeman—and there I admit our police are probably the best in the world—and a crowd being dealt with by police who have orders to clear a particular place at any cost and anyhow. It is true that we are facing a very difficult winter. We have been facing it for the last 10
years. If the story of what the police have done during the last 10 years had been written as the story of the previous occurrences has been written, I wonder if the smooth words of the Home Secretary would be borne out. The events of last night happened here where we all happen to be, and the same kind of thing will probably not happen again so near the House, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that something is done to prevent this kind of thing happening again not, only here but in other places. The Home Secretary said, as though they did not matter, that the crowd consisted mostly of youths. That may be true, and probably is, but I would ask him why it consisted mostly of youths. It is not merely a matter of the ebullient, high spirits of youth. There is precious little high spirit left in some of these youths.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They were not university students on this occasion. It was not boat race night.

Miss WILKINSON: I would ask the Home Secretary to remember that it is very difficult indeed for these youths to get public assistance under the new public assistance committees, for many of them, especially in London, in spite of the circulars that were issued by the previous Ministry of Health, and in defiance of those circulars, are being denied out-relief of any kind whatever. Quite a lot of them are not even qualified for unemployment benefit, so bad has the thing become, and it is extremely difficult for youths to get unemployment benefit under the present regulations. There is, therefore, all the reason in the world why a crowd of unemployed demonstrating at the present time should consist of young men, who are being driven from both sides to desperation, not being able to get either any kind of relief or any kind of unemployment benefit. Therefore, under the circumstances, I ask the Home Secretary if he will not go a little deeper than he went on a previous occasion and see whether anything can be done.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: I was not one of those who witnessed the events of last night, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway), I have heard what has been said to us to-
night by the Home Secretary, and I consider his speech and the tone of his speech the most alarming thing that has happened since Parliament was called together. I associate the fact that he has made that speech to-night with the other fact that he was the one Minister last night on whom was left the emphasis upon the point that the unemployed must pay, and he has continued the tone and matter of that speech last night in what he has said to-night. He has given an impression that the magistrates have been too lenient in their judgment upon the unemployed.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: No. I heard the whole of the Home Secretary's speech, and he never said anything of the kind to justify the remark that the hon. Member has made.

Mr. HUDSON: The Home Secretary spoke specifically of the leniency that was shown in the courts when the matter came before them, and I said that he gave the impression that it was too great leniency. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I gave only my own impression. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a wrong impression!"] At any rate, I have no mistake about the impression that I have of the hon. Member opposite. The Home Secretary, without any evidence whatever, spoke of the disorderliness of this small section of the crowd with whom the enormous posse of police had to deal. I suggest that last night of all nights they might, when they were talking about economy here and tightening the belt, have suspended that waste of money that goes on in the form of flood lighting the Tower and the other public buildings of London. They had attracted the people to this neighbourhood in a spirit of levity. They might have expected the people to sing songs, without much idea of the seriousness of the situation that we were in, and they might have conformed to the levity which themselves were showing by at least keeping the police in some sort of proportion to the small section of the crowd that the Home Secretary mentioned.
Instead of that, at the very earliest moment they have used the mailed fist, when a little tact and ordinary common sense were most required. I am not saying that sometimes there are not in the
community, especially in times of difficulty like this, men who lose a sense of proportion. I am willing to admit that there are in crowds those who must be carefully dealt with, and ultimately strongly dealt with, but it was not the time last night, and it was not the time to-night for the Home Secretary to adopt the tone that he did adopt. I want to ask some other Minister on that Front Bench to give us an indication that the attitude of the Home Secretary to-night is not to be the attitude of the new Government, for if it goes forward that the new Government are to associate their policy of the poor tightening their belts with the further policy of hammering the poor while they do tighten their belts, we are in for periods of difficulty in this country which will need far more than the words that the Home Secretary has used to-night to deal with. I suggest that we have had to-night a display of an attitude that was entirely unwarranted by the circumstances, and I ask for an alteration of that attitude at the earliest possible moment.

10.0 p.m.

Mrs. MANNING: I desire to associate myself with the protest made, as one who saw that crowd from the very beginning of its formation in Museum Street. I was fetched by a deputation of my own constituents to see them outside this House being paraded round by a big posse of police, which was absolutely unnecessary under the circumstances. I was asked by some of my constituents, many of whom are unemployed, to be present at their demonstration in Museum Street if my duties here could possibly allow me to go there, and I went there to see if it was possible to address them in the square in Museum Street. I found there the most orderly crowd—[Interruption.]—I do not see why you should laugh. I went down to my own constituents, many of whom were in that crowd, and I found the most orderly crowd—bitter, it is true, in view of what they knew was going to be imposed upon them by the dictatorship of this House, bitter, it is true, knowing what was to come to them during the cruel winter that they have to face—a more orderly crowd it would be difficult to find.
I had borne in upon me in Museum Street last night something that has been mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend
the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I compared the crowd which I saw in Museum Street last night and the crowd which I saw outside this House last night with crowds which I have often seen in the streets of Cambridge, crowds of undergraduates, behaving with a hooliganism which has very often distressed and disgusted the citizens of Cambridge. The police in Cambridge are very tender with them, and I am very glad that they are. Our police in this country are a decent set of gentlemen when they are not goaded on to behave otherwise. The police in Cambridge are very tender with these men because they regard their actions as the ebullience of youth and realise that we can only be young once. Certainly our youth departs from us very quickly when we come to this House. Last night's crowd was an orderly crowd when it was in Museum Street, and I was amazed when constituents of mine sent in a card to me last night to ask me if I would go outside the House of Commons and see the preparations for their reception. They were preparations, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted. Preparations for what? What is it that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentlemen behind him fear? I do not wonder that they have fear when they know what they have prepared for the poor unemployed men and women.
These people came here in an orderly fashion and in very small numbers, but there was a very large crowd outside, as good-humoured and good-tempered as a London crowd always is unless it is goaded on to anything else. It is force that breeds force. These men came here in an orderly fashion, and, if they had not been met with force, there would have been no trouble at all. Are they the only people who are demonstrating? There are some very respectable people demonstrating this week, and they will continue to demonstrate knowing what the House has in store for them. The unemployed are as law-abiding as the other people who are demonstrating, and ought to be treated with the same consideration.
I was amazed at the words of the right hon. Gentleman. When he sat on this side of the House I learned to respect him. I never saw his name go up on the "ticker" without coming in to hear what he said. One of the things he
taught me was respect for the real Liberal mind. There is no doubt that evil companions corrupt good manners, and I shall regret it if they corrupt good principles also. It has been a matter of the deepest regret to me to hear the right hon. Gentleman speaking in the way he did of the poor unemployed who are threatened with a cut—men for whom the Government have been changed and who are the cause of the crisis. I wonder what hon. Members opposite thought was in store for them last night. My word, you must have guilty consciences that you should have had mounted police outside! I am astonished at the words spoken by the right hon. Gentleman, a Liberal. I was brought up a Liberal, but, good heavens, it was not that sort of Liberalism. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to adopt the attitude which he has adopted here to-night. I ask him to give this matter his consideration, not as a Member of this Government, but as the gentleman whom we knew when he sat on these benches. I hope he will realise that this is not a matter that should be tampered with, but a matter that should he given grave treatment. If the kind of treatment that was meted out to them last night is to be meted out to these men, there will he much more bitter scenes during the coming winter.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I hope that the House will allow me out of courtesy to hon. Members who have spoken to add a few words to what I have said. If I had had even a quarter of an hour's notice that this matter was to have been raised, I should have provided myself with all the information to enable me to answer the questions addressed to me as to the numbers employed, and as to the more detailed circumstances of the incidents of last night. Let me point out just one fact in answer to what has been said by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mrs. Manning), and by the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway). He said that this demonstration ought to have been allowed, and that in view of the hardships of the unemployed they should not be denied their opportunity of bringing their complaints even to the door of Parliament itself. Why, they ask, should the police have interfered with a procession which was of an orderly character?

Mr. BROCKWAY: I did not make, and I do not think that the hon. Lady made, any reference to a procession here, for we are aware that a procession is not allowed in the precincts of this House. This was not a procession.

Sir H. SAMUEL: There was certainly a crowd of persons who were engaged in a demonstration. There is an Order of this House which requires the Commissioner of Police to take action in such circumstances and I will read it. This Order was passed as a Sessional Order on the 28th October, 1930. It has been passed every year for many generations, and it was moved on the last occasion under the auspices of the Government of that day, as it had been moved under the auspices of other Governments. The Order is:
That the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House he kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall or in the passages leading to this House during the Sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioner aforesaid.

Mr. J. HUDSON: Did that Order apply when the Government were helping to attract large crowds by permitting the flood-lighting of the eastern end of the House?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The late First Commissioner of Works sanctioned that arrangement, and I would point out that it involves no expense to the country—[Interruption].

Mr. SPEAKER: If the Home Secretary is attacked, the least that hon. Members can do is to allow him to reply.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Those crowds involved no obstruction or danger of disturbance or deterrence of persons approaching or leaving the House of Commons. That is the answer when I am asked why it was that it was necessary to disperse these crowds. The Commissioner has his orders through the Serjeant-at-Arms which this House unanimously passed, and he would have been doing less than his duty if he disobeyed those orders. As to my previous observations, I would venture respectfully,
but with some indignation, to repudiate the accusations that I spoke either with complacency or with contempt. Those who have heard my previous speech will, I am quite certain, bear me out when I say that neither of those epithets could fairly be used to characterise my remarks.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Your actions speak louder than your words.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Nor did I say or suggest that I thought that the magistrate was too lenient in dealing with these cases. As a matter of fact I said that the cases had been dealt with leniently. I do not think anyone has been sent to prison, and, so far as I know, no one was even fined; they were bound over to be of good conduct for a period of months. My consciousness of innocence in the face of the accusations of hon. Members opposite is confirmed by my even more complete consciousness of innocence in regard to the accusations of the hon. Member for East Middles-brough (Miss Wilkinson), who told us that her memory went back to the time when I was Home Secretary before, and how on that occasion I defended the police when they had made attacks upon women engaged in the suffrage movement, told us how those women were seriously injured by the brutality of the police, and how I as Home Secretary had defended the police in all circumstances. I am afraid the hon. Lady's memory has deceived her, because when I was Home Secretary formerly was in 1916, during the War, when the whole of the suffrage agitation was in abeyance, when no such incidents occurred.

Miss WILKINSON: I apologise if my memory was wrong as to the date, but if the right hon. Gentleman was not actually occupying that office at the time to which I referred I can quote from books the words which he used on the subject. He actually was in the Government, Mr. Asquith's Government, at that time and defended the police in words strongly reminiscent of those he used to-day, when there was a particular raid on this House and when many women were seriously injured.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I should be interested to see the quotation. Personally I do not recollect the incident. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says that perhaps it was when I was Under-Secre-
tary. I was Under-Secretary before the suffrage agitation. This reminds me of the fable of the wolf and the lamb and the stream. On this occasion I can claim complete lamblike innocence.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Tell us what you are going to do about the unemployed?

Sir H. SAMUEL: With regard to a further inquiry into the incidents of last night, as several Members of this House have desired, such an inquiry certainly it shall be made, and if they have any specific cases which they desire to bring to my notice I will gladly make special inquiries into those cases; but
in consenting to make an inquiry it must not be supposed that I accept in any way the condemnation that has been passed upon the action of the police in these cases. When Members of the House desire that particular inquiries should be made with regard to incidents of which they have first hand knowledge, in the normal course such inquiries are naturally undertaken.

It being one hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes after Ten o'Clock.